Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 47 (PNJ)

Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana

2000-01-13

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
JUDGMENT K.S. Kumaran, J. - FIR 51 dated 12.5.1999 has been registered at Police Station Sadar Yamunanagar under Sections 392, 397, 307 Indian Penal Code and under the Arms Act on the statement of Amjad Khan wherein the followings allegations are found :- 2. On 11.5.99, the complainant loaded his tractor trolley to the Paper Mills Saharanpur; left the trolley in the mill for unloading and was returning with the tractor. He was followed by three young persons in another tractor for sometime and some distance, and then they stopped their tractor, came near the tractor of the complainant, and threatened to shoot him, if he did not get down from the tractor. The complainant got down from the tractor and one of them exhorted by saying, Sushil fire a shot and we shall flee away with the tractor quickly, on which one of the boys fired a shot on the neck of the complainant. The complainant fell down and these three boys fled away with the tractor. 3. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court, Yamunanagar for bail under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code, but his application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, and that is why the petitioner has approached this Court for the same relief. 4. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the tractor in question and certain fire arms have been recovered from the co-accused Sanjiv Kumar and Rajiv Kumar who have been released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar, and therefore, he is also entitled to be released on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that except the allegation that one of the boys said Sushil shoot, there is no indication that it was the petitioner who shot the complainant. He further contends that though fire arms and two cartridges were allegedly recovered from the petitioner, they were planted upon the petitioner, and there is no material to show that it was the petitioner who fired the shot. He further contends that there was no identification parade to identify the petitioner and simply because, he bears the name-Sushil, he cannot be implicated in this case. 6. He further contends that there was no identification parade to identify the petitioner and simply because, he bears the name-Sushil, he cannot be implicated in this case. 6. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was arrested on 18.5.99 and on his disclosure statement his (petitioners) weapon was with Rajiv, the said weapon was recovered from Rajiv Kumar, and that Rajiv Kumars weapon was recovered from the petitioner. He contends that Sanjiv Kumar and Rajiv Kumar were released on bail because their names are not in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the incident had allegedly taken place at 12.30 a.m. during the night and in the absence of any identification parade to connect the petitioner with the crime and in the absence of any material to show that the weapon in the possession of the petitioner was used in the incident, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, especially when the two co-accused had already been released on bail. 7. Taking into consideration the arguments put forward, but at the same time, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Petition allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Jagadhari. Petition allowed.