Judgment:
CRM-M No.4038 of 2014(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.4038 of 2014(O&M).Date of Decision : 03.04.2014.
Raju ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr.V.D.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Shekhar Mudgal, AAG, Haryana.
*** Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.
(Oral) This order shall dispose of the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.seeking regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.108 dated 08.06.2012 under Sections 302, 285, 120-B, 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Uchana, District Jind.
Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
As per prosecution version, the date of occurrence is 08.06.2012.
The deceased Rajpal @ Pali as per the statement of the complainant Jaswant Jain, who is brother of the deceased, had been murdered by three unknown boys, who had come on motor cycle and had resorted to firing.
During the couRs.of investigation, Surender @ Kera, Sanjay @ Sanju and the Kanchan 2014.04.07 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M No.4038 of 2014(O&M) 2 present petitioner were arrested.
It so transpires that thereafter Ajit @ Sonu had also been summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.Learned State counsel would oppose the present petition by submitting that the present petitioner had suffered a disclosure statement as regards his involvement in the crime and keeping in view the seriousness of the offence, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would meet the arguments raised by learned State counsel by contending that the present petitioner has already been acquitted in the other case arising out of FIR No.132 dated 09.06.2012 under Sections 398, 401, 307 IPC read with Section 25-54-59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Narwana and as such would submit that such disclosure statement in another case cannot deprive his claim seeking regular bail in the present case.
The acquittal of the petitioner in the aforementioned case has gone unrebutted.
It is also the conceded position of fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 09.06.2012 and the main prosecution witnesses have already been examined.
It is further submitted that co-accused Ajit @ Sonu has already been granted the benefit of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2013 passed in in CRM-M No.5081 of 2013.
At this stage, learned State counsel would apprise the Court that Ajit @ Sonu has misused such concession of bail and even P.O.proceedings stand initiated against him.
Kanchan 2014.04.07 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M No.4038 of 2014(O&M) 3 Be that as it may, in the totality of circumstances and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of regular bail.
Petition is allowed.
The petitioner be enlarged on bail subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Petition disposed of accordingly.
April 03, 2014.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) kanchan JUDGE Kanchan 2014.04.07 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh