Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 983 (PNJ)

Vinod alias Bittu v. State of Haryana

2000-08-24

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
JUDGMENT K.S. Kumaran, J. - These two petitions namely, Cr. M. 4488-M and Cr. M. 19713-M of 2000 for bail under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code arise from the same F.I.R. and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common order. 2. F.I.R. 95 dated 12.3.1999 has been registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Rohtak under Sections 148, 302, 307, 452 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act on the statement of Kuldip Singh, wherein the following material allegations are found :- 3. Complainant and Khushabi Ram had committed the murder of Ashok Gaba in 1990. The complainant had come to meet Khushabi Ram on 11.3.1999 at 8.30 p.m. On 12.3.1999 at about 12 noon the complainant and Khushabi Ram had come to Gandhi Nagar to meet Titu who was staying with Ram Piyari (deceased in this case). They met Titu, Ram Piyari, Vijay and Binay. Khushabi Ram, Titu and Ram Piyari were talking in the verandah, while the complainant, Binay and Vijay were sitting in the front room and were talking, when they heard a fire shot at about 5 p.m. The complainant saw outside, and a bullet hit him on this left thigh. The complainant saw Pappu Gaba (petitioner in Cr. M. 19713-M of 2000), Mangi Khanna and Monu (each armed with a pistol) and two other young boys whom the complainant could recognise, but the complainant did not see any weapon in their arms. They fired numerous shots and fled away in a Tata Sumo. The complainant came out and saw Ram Piyari dead, with fire arm injuries, in a pool of blood. From the compound Khushabi Ram and Titu had also fired, but they had fled away through the back door. Vijay took the complainant and Ram Piyari to the Medical College, Rohtak, where Ram Piyari was declared dead and the complainant was admitted. The application for bail moved by the petitioners were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code 3. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner-Vinod alias Bittu had not been named in the F.I.R. at all, but was named by complainant-Kuldip Singh in his supplementary statement recorded on 15.3.1999. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner-Vinod alias Bittu had not been named in the F.I.R. at all, but was named by complainant-Kuldip Singh in his supplementary statement recorded on 15.3.1999. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that in the F.I.R. the complainant has mentioned only the names of Pappu Gaba, Mangi Khanna, Manu and about two other young boys only, whereas in the supplementary statement, the complainant has stated that of the assailants, 7 were known persons and 2 were injured. They contend that apart from this improvement, the complainant has further improved by stating that Satish and Om Parkash, who are not mentioned in the F.I.R. at all, have now been introduced as eye-witnesses. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contend that while in the F.I.R., the complainant has stated that all the accused went away in a Tata Sumo vehicle, in the supplementary statement, he has introduced a Maruti car and scooters. They also contended that prosecution has examined 3 eye-witnesses and none of them has supported the prosecution, while Kuldip Singh, the complainant and who was also an eye-witness, is dead. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners contend that all the material witnesses have been examined before the trial Court, and that there is no incriminating evidence against the petitioners at all and, therefore, they are entitled to be released on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Vinod also states that even in the supplementary statement, there is no overt act attributed to him. It is also contended that the alleged recovery of a pistol from him is only the result of the padding by the Investigating Agency, and that if the complainant had really known this petitioner, he would have certainly named him in the. F.I.R. itself. The petitioners have also placed on record the copies of the statements of the alleged eye-witness given before the trial Court to show that they have not supported the case of the prosecution at all. It is contended by the learned counsel for the State also that all the 5 eye- witnesses have turned hostile and that Kuldip Singh, the other eye-witness, who is also the complainant, is also dead. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the State also that all the 5 eye- witnesses have turned hostile and that Kuldip Singh, the other eye-witness, who is also the complainant, is also dead. 5. Therefore, it these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. Of course, petitioner-Pappu had earlier moved an application (Cr.M. 31463-M of 1999) before this Court and the same was dismissed by me. But, in view of the changed circumstance where all the eye-witnesses have turned hostile and the 6th eye-witness-Kuldip Singh had died, I am of the view that this petitioner can also be granted bail. 6. The petitions are allowed. Without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the C.J.M., Rohtak. Petitions allowed.