as Such Without Expressing Any Opinion on the Merits of the Vs. State of Haryana --respondent - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1154960
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-09-2014
Appellantas Such Without Expressing Any Opinion on the Merits of the
RespondentState of Haryana --respondent
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh crm no.m-21178 of 2014 (o&m) date of decision: 09.07.2014. partap singh --petitioner versus state of haryana --respondent coram:- hon'ble mr.justice tejinder singh dhindsa. present:- mr.y.s.rathore, advocate for the petitioner. mr.vikas malik, a.a.g., haryana. mr.j.s.rozera, advocate for the complainant. *** tejinder singh dhindsa.j this order shall dispose of the present petition filed under section 439 cr.p.c praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case f.i.r.no.318 dated 28.4.2012 under sections 148, 149, 302, 34 i.p.c and sections 25, 54, 59 of arms act, registered at police station, model town, panipat, district panipat. learned counsel for the parties have been heard. f.i.r in question was registered on the statement of complainant zile singh i.e.father of deceased sardara singh. a perusal of the f.i.r would reveal that it was an open f.i.r, wherein complainant zile singh had alleged that some unknown persons had murdered his son by firing shots on account of some money transactions with regard to the finance business of his son sardara singh. the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of an alleged extra judicial confession made by the petitioner himself before one kaptan singh on 1.5.2012. lucky 2014.07.10 16:33 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm no.m-21178 of 2014 (o&m) -2- even a perusal of such extra judicial confession placed on record at annexure p-2 would reveal that the petitioner has assigned to himself the role of having kept an eye and watch on the movement of deceased sardara singh and thereafter has facilitated the killing of sardara singh, who was shot at by jasvir, sandeep @ kala son of lehna as also sandeep @ leela son of mahender. the issue with regard to an offence under section 302 i.p.c read with section 34 i.p.c having been made out against the present petitioner, would be a moot point to be considered during the cours.of trial. even the question as regards evidential value of such alleged extra judicial confession made by present petitioner would be yet another issue. it has gone uncontroverted that the petitioner has been in custody since 1.5.2012 and the trial is yet to take some time to conclude inasmuch as out of 24 prosecution witnesses only 13 have been examined as of date. furthermore, co-accused suraj bhan, who was also implicated on the basis of extra judicial confession made by the present petitioner, has been granted the benefit of regular bail by this court vide order dated 12.5.2014 passed in crm no.m-5465 of 2014. as such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and keeping in view the circumstances, noticed herein above as also the length of incarceration already suffered by the petitioner, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of regular bail. present petition is, accordingly, allowed. bail to the satisfaction of the trial court. petition disposed of. (tejinder singh dhindsa) judge july 09, 2014. lucky
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-21178 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.07.2014.

Partap Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana --Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

Present:- Mr.Y.S.Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Vikas Malik, A.A.G., Haryana.

Mr.J.S.Rozera, Advocate for the complainant.

*** TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J This order shall dispose of the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R.No.318 dated 28.4.2012 under sections 148, 149, 302, 34 I.P.C and sections 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Model Town, Panipat, District Panipat.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

F.I.R in question was registered on the statement of complainant Zile Singh i.e.father of deceased Sardara Singh.

A perusal of the F.I.R would reveal that it was an open F.I.R, wherein complainant Zile Singh had alleged that some unknown persons had murdered his son by firing shots on account of some money transactions with regard to the finance business of his son Sardara Singh.

The petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of an alleged extra judicial confession made by the petitioner himself before one Kaptan Singh on 1.5.2012.

Lucky 2014.07.10 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM No.M-21178 of 2014 (O&M) -2- Even a perusal of such extra judicial confession placed on record at Annexure P-2 would reveal that the petitioner has assigned to himself the role of having kept an eye and watch on the movement of deceased Sardara Singh and thereafter has facilitated the killing of Sardara Singh, who was shot at by Jasvir, Sandeep @ Kala son of Lehna as also Sandeep @ Leela son of Mahender.

The issue with regard to an offence under Section 302 I.P.C read with Section 34 I.P.C having been made out against the present petitioner, would be a moot point to be considered during the couRs.of trial.

Even the question as regards evidential value of such alleged extra judicial confession made by present petitioner would be yet another issue.

It has gone uncontroverted that the petitioner has been in custody since 1.5.2012 and the trial is yet to take some time to conclude inasmuch as out of 24 prosecution witnesses only 13 have been examined as of date.

Furthermore, co-accused Suraj Bhan, who was also implicated on the basis of extra judicial confession made by the present petitioner, has been granted the benefit of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 12.5.2014 passed in CRM No.M-5465 of 2014.

As such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and keeping in view the circumstances, noticed herein above as also the length of incarceration already suffered by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of regular bail.

Present petition is, accordingly, allowed.

Bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Petition disposed of.

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE July 09, 2014.

lucky