Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 181 (PNJ)

Virender v. State of Haryana

2004-02-17

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Crl. Misc. No. 7591 of 2004 is allowed. Annexures P1 and P2 are taken on record. 2. Virender Singh alias Pappu alias Harvinder prays for regular bail in case FIR No. 314 dated 23.11.2002, under Sections 304/325/323/34 Indian Penal Code, registered at police station Narnaund, District Hisar. It is a case of one version and a cross version. From the side of the petitioner one person namely Rajpati has lost her life, whereas from the complainant side one Risal Singh has died. There are injured as well from both the sides. Two challans have been submitted in Court. Both the cases have been committed to the Court of Sessions by now. 3. The present case was registered on the statement of Ajmer Singh from the side of the present petitioner. 4. Ajmer Singh and his four brothers own 19 acres of joint land; that he has constructed a house, which is on the road side of the village, in which he is residing with his family; that his maternal grand father belongs to village Sunaria, District Rohtak; that his maternal uncle (Mamma) Risal Singh was unmarried and he as well as his real brother Prit Singh are married in one house in village Kungad; that wife of Prit Singh has died about 5/6 months ago; that Prit Singh has two sons namely Bijender and Virender @ Pappu; that the petitioner is married to Shakuntla alias Guddi in village Singhwa; that Risal Singh used to keep Harvinder @ Pappu, the nephew of Ajmer Singh and Guddi as also their children at Rohtak as they were being brought up there; that Guddi had turned out her husband (the present petitioner) from the house and Kuldip @ Kalu son of Sumer singh used to cultivate the land of the present petitioner. 5. 5. It is then alleged that on 22.11.2002 around 2.00 PM Shakuntla @ Guddi came to the fields to take her share of Bajra and the same was got filled in the bags; that when she was standing on Julana road, Badchappar for the purpose of boarding some conveyance at about 6.00 PM, the present petitioner alongwith his Bhabi, who is wife of Kalam Singh, alighted from a vehicle and when Guddi saw them, she went to village Badchappar and the present petitioner alongwith his Bhabi came to his field house; that by that time Ajmer Singh had also come back from the village; that Ram Mehar son of Mange Ram, who is cultivating their land had also come to that the place alongwith Prit Singh; that Vikas and Khazan singh had also come there from their tube-well; that in the meantime a Maruti van reached there in which Risal Singh (since dead), Azad and Satbir Singh and Samunder Singh besides Guddi and a driver of the van alighted from the van and raised a lalkara that no one should be spared; that Azad, who was having a revolver in his hand, started firing at Ajmer Singh and others; that Rajpati received bullet injury on her fore-head; that Ram Mehar was also injured; that Azad Singh and Risal Singh had also received injuries; that many people, who were working in the nearby fields, came to the spot. 6. The matter was reported to the police by Ajmer Singh on 22.11.2002 itself at about 7.00 PM. 7. On the next day at 2.30 PM, statement of Shakuntla alias Guddi was recorded by the police, wherein she admitted all the relations but came up with a cross-version, which runs thus: 8. She along with other persons (as named by Ajmer Singh complainant in the cross-case) had gone to the house of Ajmer Singh in the fields of village Badchhapar and had started discussing about the share of crop with Ajmer Singh when an altercation started in which Rajinder, Khazan, Vikas, Parveen, Krishan, Amarjit, Rajpati and the present petitioner were present. She along with other persons (as named by Ajmer Singh complainant in the cross-case) had gone to the house of Ajmer Singh in the fields of village Badchhapar and had started discussing about the share of crop with Ajmer Singh when an altercation started in which Rajinder, Khazan, Vikas, Parveen, Krishan, Amarjit, Rajpati and the present petitioner were present. Rajender and Vikas, who were carrying lathis in their hands, started beating Shakuntla; that when Risal Singh fell upon Shakuntla in order to save her, he was given lathi blow on the head by Ajmer Singh while Krishan @ Krishna caused injuries on the head and legs of Risal Singh; that Vikas also caused injuries to Risal Singh; that Amarjit Singh and Parveen, who were also present there caused injuries to Azad and Samunder and consequently Samunder Singh fired in self defence from his revolver, hitting Rajpati and Ram Mehar; that Risal Singh and Azad Singh had fallen down on the ground, whereas the other persons from their side fled away. 9. The factual position which emerges now is that from the side of the present petitioner Rajpati (since dead) and Ram Mehar have received fire shot injuries, whereas from the other side Risal Singh (since dead) and Azad Singh and Samunder Singh had received injuries. 10. I have heard Mr. Ajai Lamba, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjeev Dahiya, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. Rakesh Nehra, learned counsel for the complainant. With their assistance, I have also gone through the entire record. The impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also been perused. 11. Mr. Lamba vehemently contends that from the complainant side all the accused except Azad have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court; that Azad Singh had applied for anticipatory bail before this Court and the same was dismissed vide Criminal Misc. No. 54237-M of 2002 and thereafter the Special Leave Petition moved by him for the same relief was also dismissed by the Honble Apex Court vide order dated 27.10.2003. 12. Mr. No. 54237-M of 2002 and thereafter the Special Leave Petition moved by him for the same relief was also dismissed by the Honble Apex Court vide order dated 27.10.2003. 12. Mr. Lamba then contends that as per the statement of Shakuntla alias Guddi-complainant, the present petitioner has not given any injury to Risal Singh (since deceased); that from their side also Rajpati has received a fire-arm injury on the fore-head from a very close range, which is attributed to Azad Singh, who had allegedly used the revolver of Samunder; that Azad Singh had also given injury to Ram Mehar, who was present. Mr. Lamba further contends that after thorough investigation, the prosecution agency has put up the challan against the present petitioner and Ajmer Singh only, whereas the other persons, who are shown to be present at the spot by Shakuntla complainant, have been put in column No. 2. Mr. Lamba, however, fairly concedes that they have now been summoned to face trial on an application under Section 319 of the code of Criminal Procedure moved by the State and the next date now fixed is 8.4.2004 for their appearance. Relying heavily on Annexures P1 and P2, he submits that even the witnesses from the challan of the complainant side have also strengthened the case of the petitioners side as already projected by Ajmer. Developing his argument further, Mr. Lamba has drawn my attention to the statement of Shakuntla alias Guddi-complainant, when she was examined on oath as the main prosecution witness before moving an application under section 319 Criminal Procedure Code wherein she does not attribute any role to the present petitioner qua Risal Singh (deceased) and states that Ajmer Singh along with other persons (now summoned under section 319 Criminal Procedure Code) had caused injuries to Risal Singh. Mr. Lamba then contends that the petitioner is in custody since long and even if both the cases have been committed to the Court of Sessions, the trial is likely to take considerable time especially when some of the co-accused have now been summoned under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code to face trial. 13. The learned State counsel assisted by Mr. Lamba then contends that the petitioner is in custody since long and even if both the cases have been committed to the Court of Sessions, the trial is likely to take considerable time especially when some of the co-accused have now been summoned under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code to face trial. 13. The learned State counsel assisted by Mr. Nehra, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the bail application, submiting that the petitioner along with Ajmer Singh had caused injuries to Risal Singh, Azad Singh and Samunder; that from the complainant side these three persons had received multiple injuries and as such Azad Singh while exercising his right of self defence had caused injuries to Rajpati (deceased) and Ram Mehar; that even if the present petitioner had not caused any injury to Risal Singh (deceased), he does not deserve the concession of bail as he had actively participated in the commission of the offence. 14. In compliance with my order dated January 29, 2004, the Registry has added the records of other petitions, vide which Shakuntla alias Guddi, Om Parkash and Samunder have been granted the concession of bail by this Court. I have also perused the said orders. 15. Showing my full restraint in expressing any opinion on merits of the case at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial, but keeping in view the totality of the facts, the fact that the petitioner has not caused any injury to deceased Risal Singh as per the initial statement of Shakuntla complainant or even as per her statement on oath in the Court, as also the fact that both the sides have received injuries in this case, having lost one member on either side and claiming the right of self defence, I deem it to be a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Hisar. Petition allowed.