Present: Mr.Mohan Lal Singla Advocate Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1154590
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-08-2014
AppellantPresent: Mr.Mohan Lal Singla Advocate
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
crm no.m-18751 of 2014 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm no.m-18751 of 2014 date of decision:08.07.2014 raj kumar @ raju .....petitioner versus state of haryana .....respondent coram: hon'ble mr. justice mehinder singh sullar. present: mr.mohan lal singla, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.rajat mor, deputy advocate general, haryana, for the respondent-state. **** mehinder singh sullar , j.(oral) petitioner-raj kumar @ raju son of mange ram, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of regular bail, in a cross-case registered against him along with his other co-accused, namely, abhishek @ sonu, mahender, surender singh gill, rajiv kaushik, ramesh, rajesh @ raj, dilbag @ kala, virender @ binder, ravi, vikramjeet singh @ neetu,vijender @ bijender etc., vide fir no.279 dated 15.07.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 109, 148, 149, 302 ipc, section 25 of the arms act and sections 3 & 4 of the scheduled caste & scheduled tribe(prevention of atrocities) act, 1989, by the police of police station barwala, district hisar.2. notice of the petition was issued to the state.3. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going rani seema 2014.07.08 18:14 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh crm no.m-18751 of 2014 2 through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context.4. precisely, the prosecution claimed that accused sunder @ surender(non-petitioner) has caught hold of balwinder @ rinku, whereas main accused vicky @ mahakal son of om parkash(since deceased) has fired a shot from his rifle, which hit balwinder @ rinku, culminating into his death. sequelly, according to the prosecution in the cross-case, balwinder @ rinku took the rifle from surinder gill and vicky @ mahakal took the rifle from sunder @ surender and in a fit of anger, they fired shots on each other. balwinder @ rinku succumbed to his injuries at the spot, whereas vicky @ mahakal died subsequently. prima facie, it appears to be a case of free-fight between both the parties in connection with the possession of the plot in question of wakf board.5. meaning thereby, all the main allegations of commission of murder of balwinder @ rinku(deceased) are assigned to main accused sunder @ surender(non-petitioner) and vicky @ mahakal(since deceased). whereas the main allegations of murder of vicky @ mahakal (deceased) are attributed to balwinder @ rinku(since deceased). in this manner, neither any specific role nor any particular injury is attributed to the present petitioner in the fir. moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner-accused was involved in this case, in pursuance of subsequent statement under section 161 cr.p.c. of accused surinder gill son of dhania gill, recorded by the police on 08.01.2014(i.e. after about six months of the present incident). what is the evidentiary value of such rani seema 2014.07.08 18:14 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh crm no.m-18751 of 2014 3 belatedly recorded statement and other evidence, inter alia, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial court.6. not only that, abhishek and others, similarly situated co- accused of the petitioner, were granted the concession of regular bail by this court, by virtue of order dated 29.05.2014, rendered in main crm no.m-16758 of 2014, whereas ramesh & others and vijender @ bijender, co-accused in other cross-case, were also granted the concession of regular bail by this court, by means of orders dated 24.04.2014 & 13.05.2014, rendered in crm nos.m-5456 & 12842 of 2014. therefore, in that eventuality, i see no reason not to extend the same benefit of regular bail to the present petitioner as well under the similar set of circumstances.7. moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 19.12.2013. since then he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. since, even the charges have not yet been framed against the accused, so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.8. in the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant petition for regular bail is hereby accepted. the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, rani seema 2014.07.08 18:14 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh crm no.m-18751 of 2014 4 would reflect, in any manner, on merits in the trial of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petitions for regular bail. july 08, 2014 (mehinder singh sullar) seema judge rani seema 2014.07.08 18:14 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh
Judgment:

CRM No.M-18751 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-18751 of 2014 Date of Decision:08.07.2014 Raj Kumar @ Raju .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Mohan Lal Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajat Mor, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. **** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) Petitioner-Raj Kumar @ Raju son of Mange Ram, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of regular bail, in a cross-case registered against him along with his other co-accused, namely, Abhishek @ Sonu, Mahender, Surender Singh Gill, Rajiv Kaushik, Ramesh, Rajesh @ Raj, Dilbag @ Kala, Virender @ Binder, Ravi, Vikramjeet Singh @ Neetu,Vijender @ Bijender etc., vide FIR No.279 dated 15.07.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 109, 148, 149, 302 IPC, Section 25 of The Arms Act and Sections 3 & 4 of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, by the police of Police Station Barwala, District Hisar.

2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going Rani Seema 2014.07.08 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-18751 of 2014 2 through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

4. Precisely, the prosecution claimed that accused Sunder @ Surender(non-petitioner) has caught hold of Balwinder @ Rinku, whereas main accused Vicky @ Mahakal son of Om Parkash(since deceased) has fired a shot from his rifle, which hit Balwinder @ Rinku, culminating into his death. Sequelly, according to the prosecution in the cross-case, Balwinder @ Rinku took the rifle from Surinder Gill and Vicky @ Mahakal took the rifle from Sunder @ Surender and in a fit of anger, they fired shots on each other. Balwinder @ Rinku succumbed to his injuries at the spot, whereas Vicky @ Mahakal died subsequently. Prima facie, it appears to be a case of free-fight between both the parties in connection with the possession of the plot in question of Wakf Board.

5. Meaning thereby, all the main allegations of commission of murder of Balwinder @ Rinku(deceased) are assigned to main accused Sunder @ Surender(non-petitioner) and Vicky @ Mahakal(since deceased). Whereas the main allegations of murder of Vicky @ Mahakal (deceased) are attributed to Balwinder @ Rinku(since deceased). In this manner, neither any specific role nor any particular injury is attributed to the present petitioner in the FIR. Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner-accused was involved in this case, in pursuance of subsequent statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of accused Surinder Gill son of Dhania Gill, recorded by the police on 08.01.2014(i.e. after about six months of the present incident). What is the evidentiary value of such Rani Seema 2014.07.08 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-18751 of 2014 3 belatedly recorded statement and other evidence, inter alia, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court.

6. Not only that, Abhishek and others, similarly situated co- accused of the petitioner, were granted the concession of regular bail by this Court, by virtue of order dated 29.05.2014, rendered in main CRM No.M-16758 of 2014, whereas Ramesh & others and Vijender @ Bijender, co-accused in other cross-case, were also granted the concession of regular bail by this Court, by means of orders dated 24.04.2014 & 13.05.2014, rendered in CRM Nos.M-5456 & 12842 of 2014. Therefore, in that eventuality, I see no reason not to extend the same benefit of regular bail to the present petitioner as well under the similar set of circumstances.

7. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 19.12.2013. Since then he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. Since, even the charges have not yet been framed against the accused, so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant petition for regular bail is hereby accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, Rani Seema 2014.07.08 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-18751 of 2014 4 would reflect, in any manner, on merits in the trial of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petitions for regular bail. July 08, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Rani Seema 2014.07.08 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh