Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 32 (PNJ)

Satish alias Lambi v. State of Haryana

2000-01-11

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
ORDER K.S. Kumaran, J. - F.I.R. No. 167 dated 3.5.1999 has been registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code etc. on the statement of Ramesh Kumar, wherein it has been alleged that his younger brother-Mahesh (deceased in the case) was at home on 2.5.1999 and at about 5.00/5.30 p.m. two boys came and called him, while some others were sitting in car outside. It has also been alleged that Mahesh who had left did not return home even on the next morning and on 3.5.1999 at about 11 a.m., he came to know that the dead- body of Mahesh was laying in the first floor of Nanda Building, Gohana Road, Rohtak on which the complainant along with his brother went to the said building and found Mahesh lying dead with bullet injury and marks of injury on the head and back. The complainant suspected that those boys who had taken him, had killed Mahesh. It has been alleged that the building mentioned above has been taken on rent by the contractors. It has been alleged therein that a few days prior to the occurrence, Mahesh had sent one Surinder to get 4 bottles of beer which the wine contractors refused to give and the complainants brother had threatened them. The complainant suspected the said contractors also regarding the murder of Mahesh. The petitioners application for bail was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak and hence this petition under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code for the same relief. 2. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. and as is seen from the F.I.R., it is a blind murder. He also contends that even the identity of the boys who had allegedly taken Mahesh (deceased) on 2.5.1999, is in doubt and no identification parade has also been conducted. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that instead of conducting the identification parade, the police has found out a short-cut to involve the petitioner herein and have introduced the statement allegedly given by one Vinod Kumar under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code on 5.5.199 and also the alleged extra judicial confession to one Dalbir Singh, who is also dead. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that instead of conducting the identification parade, the police has found out a short-cut to involve the petitioner herein and have introduced the statement allegedly given by one Vinod Kumar under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code on 5.5.199 and also the alleged extra judicial confession to one Dalbir Singh, who is also dead. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the statement allegedly given by Vinod Kumar under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code (annexure P-2), it has been mentioned that on the date of occurrence, Mahesh, himself (Vinod) and others were drinking and after the drinks were consumed, Mahesh and another wanted to have more Whisky and, therefore, himself, Mahesh and others went to the place of occurrence where 3/4 persons were sitting and drinking. He also points out that it has further been mentioned in the statement that Mahesh (deceased) said to the petitioner that since you are drinking, give whisky to us also, that an exchange took place and the petitioner and the co-accused Mahabir caught hold of Mahesh and the other co-accused-Pawan Kumar caught hold of him (Vinod). The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that it is further been mentioned therein that petitioner asked Mahabir to get a gun, that Mahabir got a gun and pointed it towards Mehesh, who jumped outside from the window, but Mahabir fired upon Mehesh from the window. The learned counsel also points out that Vinod Kumar has stated that he was also assaulted by those persons, that he became unconscious and when he regained consciousness, nobody was present there, and he thereafter went away. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contends that even as per the statement, petitioner allegedly exhorted Mahabir and that it was Mahabir who fired the shot. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the statement of Vinod Kumar is totally unbelievable and if really he was an eye- witness to the occurrence, he would not have kept quiet without reporting either to the police or atleast to the family members of the deceased-Mahesh immediately. 5. But the learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that Vinod Kumar is an injured witness in this case and the petitioner had even a scuffle with the deceased. 5. But the learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that Vinod Kumar is an injured witness in this case and the petitioner had even a scuffle with the deceased. He also contends that as per the opinion of the doctor, death of Mahesh had occurred because of the multiple injuries suffered by him. He also points out that Vinod Kumar had also sustained seven injuries, although six of them were simple in nature. Learned counsel for the State also contends that Mahabir and Satish had made an extra judicial confession to Dalbir Singh and it was the petitioner who exhorted Mahabir to commit the crime. 6. Taking into consideration the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the both the sides but at the same time, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Petition allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the C.J.M., Rohtak. Petition allowed.