Judgment:
CRM M-7433 of 2014 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Date of Decision: June 12, 2014 1.
CRM M-7433 of 2014 Kailash Bainsla …..Petitioner versus State of Haryana …..Respondent 2.
CRM M-8542 of 2014 Kadir Khan Rao …..Petitioner versus State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI.
-.- Present:- Mr.S.K.Garg Narwana, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM M-7433 of 2014.
Mr.H.S.Sangha, Sr.Advocate with Mr.T.S.Sangha, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM M-8542 of 2014.
Mr.R.K.S.Brar, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
Mr.Sushil Jain, Advocate Gupta Sanjay 2014.06.13 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM M-7433 of 2014 [2].M.M.S.BEDI, J.
This order will dispose of two petitions bearing CRM M-7433 and M-8542 of 2014 for grant of bail pending trial in FIR No.15 dated January 24, 2011 under Sections 302, 307, 506, 120-B/ 34 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh, Faridabad.
The FIR was registered at the instance of Narinder Kumar alleging that on January 23, 2011, the complainant, his brother Ravinder, younger brother Jatinder, uncle Bhopal and cousin Yoginder had gone to Village Machgarh for attending the marriage of Manisha.
Vipin Kakkar friend of Ravinder had also come to attend the marriage.
At about 2.00 a.m.at night, after conclusion of marriage ceremony, his relative Ved Parkash, Ravinder, and Vipin Kakkar came out to see off the complainant to his Scorpio which was parked near Machgarh Bukharpur road.
As they reached near the vehicle one Santro Car came from the side of Machgarh and stopped there.
Out of said car, two persons i.e.Kailash Bainsla and another person came out.
One of them embraced the brother of complainant Ravinder and pointed a pistol held in his right hand on the head of the brother of the complainant and fired shot.
Ravinder bent down as such the shot missed him.
Both the persons blindly fired upon the brother of the complainant from the pistols which they were holding in their respective hands.
Out of the same, one bullet hit on the right side chest near heart of the brother of the complainant, one bullet hit under the right side under the shoulder, one bullet hit in the right ribs and one bullet hit near the backbone.
Gupta Sanjay 2014.06.13 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM M-7433 of 2014 [3].On receipt of bullet injuries, Ravinder raised alarm that he had been shot.
The complainant ran and caught-hold one of the assailants.
On account of this, manhandling took place .
The complainant recognized Kailash Bainsla, the petitioner.
One of the shots fired by Kailash Bainsla and his companion glazed Ved Parkash leaving a bullet mark on the jacket of Ved Parkash.
Kailash Bainsla got himself freed from the complainant and ran towards his Santro.
Complainant also reached near the car and found that on the driver seat of the Santro Car, Mahabir brother of Kailash Bainsla was sitting and by his side Anil resident of Mujedi was sitting and one boy was sitting on the back seat.
While firing in the air, they ran away by sitting in the Santro Car after threatening that if the land of Bhatola is not sold to Roop Singh, the family of the complainant would be eliminated as Ravinder had been killed on that date.
While running, a magazine of pistol fell on the spot.
On hearing the noise of firing, persons from marriage palace came there.
Ravinder was taken to Escort Hospital from where he was sent to Asian Hospital where he expired after some time.
Roop Singh Nagar had hatched a conspiracy with Kailash Bainsla, Mahabir, Anil resident of Mujedi and his companions and got murdered Ravinder, brother of the complainant by giving a supari in a planned manner.
The motive attributed is that Ravinder had purchased a land in Village Bhatola near the land of Roop Singh Nagar and Roop Singh Nagar was trying to grab the land.
When brother of the complainant had refused to give the land to Roop Singh Nagar, he had threatened Ravinder many times to face dire consequences.
About 6-7 times Gupta Sanjay 2014.06.13 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM M-7433 of 2014 [4].prior to this, Roop Singh Nagar had tried to kidnap Ravinder at Surajkund Road regarding which Ravinder had submitted one complaint to the Police Commissioner, Faridabad.
With an objective to achieve his target with the help of Kailash Bainsla, Mahavir, Anil and other companions, he had brutally murdered Ravinder by firing upon him.
During the couRs.of investigation, the complainant Narinder came out with a new version by a written complaint dated January 29, 2011 to Inspector, CIA Faridabad, submitting that the persons who fired shot at his brother deceased Ravinder were Yatinder Dalal resident of UP and Kadir Khan Rao resident of District Bulandshahr, UP.
Supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded after 5 days of occurrence on January 29, 2011 to the effect that two persons who fired shots at Ravinder Fauji were Kadir Khan Rao son of Babu Khan and Yatinder Dalal son of Indervir.
Mr.S.K.Garg Narwana, learned senior counsel for Kailash Bainsla has submitted that in supplementary statement dated January 29, 2011, the complainant had absolutely exonerated the petitioner from the allegations in the FIR and that a perusal of the contents of the FIR make it clear that the petitioner alongwith his brother and relatives were falsely implicated in the case on the basis of misguided suspicion but subsequently after seeing the video film of marriage party, he named other two persons to be the main accused as Kadir Khan Rao and Yatinder Dalal.
Yatinder Dalal and Kadir Khan Rao were arrested.
During investigation, they got recovered Santro car and the weapon of offence of .32 bore pistol.
It was argued by Gupta Sanjay 2014.06.13 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM M-7433 of 2014 [5].Mr.Garg that during investigation polygraphic test was conducted upon all the three accused named in the FIR which established the non-involvement of petitioner Kailash Bainsla.
It was argued on behalf of petitioner Kailash Bainsla that deceased Ravinder was himself a person of criminal character and was involved in number of criminal cases.
List of 9 FIRs registered against him under different Sections of IPC has been produced.
Complainant also has a criminal background.
Presence of Ved Parkash PW has been doubted on the ground that he was on duty from January 23, 2011 to January 24, 2011 as such his presence on the scene of occurrence is improbable.
Mr.H.S.Sangha, learned Senior Advocate for petitioner Kadir Khan Rao has argued that name of the petitioner has been arraigned on the basis of subsequent statement made by the complainant Narinder.
It was argued that the complainant had not exonerated the accused named in the FIR i.e.Kailash Bainsla.
He has appeared in the Court as PW1 and deposed that two persons alighted from Santro car.
They were Kailash Bainsla and Yatinder Dalal and both of them fired shots at Ravinder.
It was also argued that Santro Car was driven by Mahavir Bainsla, the brother of Kailash Bainsla and Anil was occupying the conductor seat of the said car whereas Kadir Khan Rao was sitting behind as such the part attributed to Kadir Khan Rao was at the most being a person who armed sitting in the car.
His name has cropped up after five days.
It was argued that Mahavir and Anil who were sitting in the Car have been allowed bail.
Mahavir was granted bail by Gupta Sanjay 2014.06.13 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM M-7433 of 2014 [6].this Court whereas Anil was allowed bail by the learned Trial Court as such it was claimed that the petitioner also ought to have been granted the concession of bail.
Earlier petition filed by petitioner Kadir Khan Rao has been dismissed on April 5, 2014.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the statements of the witnesses recorded during the couRs.of investigation and on oath in the Court made by Narinder Singh and otheRs.It is a case of alleged killing by hired persons.
Whether the said persons are Kailash Bainsla and another accompanied by Mahavir and Anil or whether in place of Kailash Bainsla and another, it was Yatinder Dalal or Kadir Khan Rao, is yet to be determined.
It will be inappropriate for this Court to enter into the niceties of the trial and to take up appreciation of the evidence produced to determine the culpability of the petitioners lest it should prejudice the case of the petitioners or the respondent prosecution agency.
No ground is made out to grant the concession of bail to the petitioneRs.Both the petitions are dismissed.
However, the trial Court is directed to expeditiously conclude the trial.
June 12, 2014 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE Gupta Sanjay 2014.06.13 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh