Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 5 (PNJ)

Sukhwinder Singh @chiriya v. State Of Haryana

2000-01-10

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. FIR No. 376 dated 1.10.1998 has been registered at Police Station City Yamumnanagar under Sections 115, 120-B, I.P.L. on the statement of Baldev Singh which reads as follws:- 2. On 17.7.96, Sham Singh, Jagtar Singh and Sukhwinder Singh alias Chiria (petitioner herein) murdered the nephew of the complainant and after conviction they have been lodged in Central Jail, Ambala. On 17.9.98 at about 3.00 p.m., a boy was seen around the house of the complainant asking for the location of the complainants house. On hearing which, the complainant rushed outside the gate, and came to know the name of that boy as Manoj Kumar. Harinder Singh, Balwant Singh sons of Ajaman Singh and Balwant Singh son of Gurmeet Singh had also accompanied the complainant. Manoj Kumar informed that himself and others have been released from Central Jail, Ambala, and that they had met the above said persons-Sham Singh, Jagtar Singh and the petitioner in the Central Jail, Ambala, and that all these persons (petitioner and others) told them (Manoj Kumar and others) to go and have a fight with Baldev Singh and Vijay Singh, send them to the jail for which they will pay Rs. 3.00 lacs, and then they will see Baldev Singh and Vijay Singh in the jail. Manoj Kumar was also given a paper in which the names of the complainant and Vijay Singh were written in Hindi and the map was made by the petitioner who told everything about the complainant and his house. The complainant also alleged that the petitioner and the above said Sham Singh and Jagtar Singh had entered into a conspiracy in Jail. 3. The complainant has also alleged therein that he, Harvinder Singh, Balwant Singh, Bodh Raj were coming to the police station along with Manoj Kumar, but on the way the said Manoj Kumar escaped and could not be traced. Therefore, the complainant requested that action should be taken against the petitioner and others. 4. The petitioner has approached the Sessions Court, Jagadhri for bail, but his application has been dismissed, and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for bail under Section 439 Cr. P.C. 5. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records of the case on file. 6. The petitioner has already been convicted and is undergoing imprisonment in Central Jail, Ambala. P.C. 5. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records of the case on file. 6. The petitioner has already been convicted and is undergoing imprisonment in Central Jail, Ambala. The allegation is that a boy named Manoj Kumar was asking for the location of the house of the complainant-Baldev Singh on 17.9.98, and on hearing his voice, the complainant-Baldev Singh had come out and questioned the said boy. It is alleged that the said boy-Manoj Kumar informed Baldev Singh that he and certain others have been released from Ambala Jail and, while he was in the said jail petitioner-Sukhwinder Singh @ Chiria; Sham Singh, and Jagtar Singh told Manoj Kumar and others to have a fight with complainant-Baldev Singh and Vijay Singh and send them to Jail promising to pay Rs. 3 lacs, so that they can take revenge against the complainant and the others. It has further been alleged that the complainant along with others as also the said Manoj Kumar was coming to the Police Station, but the said Manoj Kumar had escaped. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that except the ipsi dixit of the complainant, there is nothing to show that the petitioner and others had entered into any conspiracy as alleged by him or had made any abetment as alleged by him, and that the alleged informant-Manoj Kumar is also conveniently stated to have escaped after giving the alleged information. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is, therefore, entitled to be released on bail. The learned counsel for the State when asked to say whether the police was able to find out the alleged informant-Manoj Kumar and record his statement, stated that the said Manoj Kumar is not traceable. 7. In these circumstances, taking into consideration the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but at the same 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. 8. Resultantly, petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Yamuna Nagar with reference to the FIR in question, if he is not required to be detained in any other case.