Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 924 (PNJ)

Het Ram v. Rajesh Kumar

2004-08-19

S.S.SARON

body2004
ORDER S.S. Saron, J. - This is a petition under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a private complaint titled Rajesh Kumar v. Het Ram and others for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149 Indian Penal Code read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the private complaint (Annexure P-1) and he is in custody since 14.11.2002. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier one Harbans Lal had died. Rajesh Kumar (respondent No. 1) and his brother Ved Parkash were tried for the murder of said Harbans Lal. Rajesh Kumar (respondent No. 1) was convicted and sentenced for a period of five years and his brother Ved Parkash was convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment. The petitioner was an eye witness in the said case. Thereafter on 29.10.2000, murder of one Mohinder was committed, for which the petitioner has now been summoned in pursuance of the private complaint (Annexure P-1). In fact, the police investigated the said case and filed challan against Rajesh Kumar (respondent No. 1) and Ved Parkash. The said Ved Parkash and Rajesh Kumar (respondent No. 1) were accused for the murder of aforesaid Mohinder. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide his order dated 21.7.2001 (Annexure P-8) found no incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused therein, so as to examine them under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code The accused were accordingly ordered to be acquitted of all the charges. After the decision dated 21.7.2001 (Annexure P-8), it is contended that the FSL report was received on 10.1.2002 (Annexure P-7). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said report connects the country-made pistol recovered from Rajesh Kumar (respondent No. 1) vide recovery memo (Annexure P-11) with the murder of Mohinder. It is contended that the result of the FSL report (Annexure P-7) shows that the bullets BC/1 and BC/2 had been fired from the country made pistol W/1 and not from any other fire arm and the pistol W/1 was recovered from Rajesh Kumar (respondent No. 1) vide recovery memo (Annexure P-11). 3. It is contended that the result of the FSL report (Annexure P-7) shows that the bullets BC/1 and BC/2 had been fired from the country made pistol W/1 and not from any other fire arm and the pistol W/1 was recovered from Rajesh Kumar (respondent No. 1) vide recovery memo (Annexure P-11). 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has strenuously opposed the application for bail and it is contended that the case is not one which would entitle the petitioner to bail inasmuch as he is the person who fired shot on the chest of Mohinder as per the complaint (Annexure P-1). Besides, it is contended that another co-accused of the petitioner, namely Bal Kishan filed CRM No. 14868-M of 2003 for grant of bail, which was dismissed as withdrawn by this court on 26.4.2004. It is also contended that the alleged recovery of the pistol from Rajesh Kumar in pursuance of recovery memo (Annexure P-11) was not supported by the witness (Khillon-PW4) of the recovery memo in the trial against Rajesh Kumar. Therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are without merit. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent also contended that anticipatory bail of the petitioner was declined by this court on 10.10.2002 in CRM No. 28748-M of 2002 and after that he did not surrender and he was arrested and produced before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal on 26.10.2002. Therefore also, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. It is further contended that the complainant apprehends grave interference to the investigation of the case in the event of the petitioner being released on bail. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter. 6. FSL report (Annexure P-7) has been received on 10.1.2002 i.e. after the respondent Rajesh Kumar and Ved Parkash were acquitted by the trial Court for the murder of Mohinder on 21.7.2001 (Annexure P-8). The petitioner has filed a Criminal Revision in this court against the order dated 21.7.2001 (Annexure P-8) acquitting Rajesh Kumar and Ved Parkash. The revision has been filed in view of the FSL report (Annexure P-7). The petitioner has filed a Criminal Revision in this court against the order dated 21.7.2001 (Annexure P-8) acquitting Rajesh Kumar and Ved Parkash. The revision has been filed in view of the FSL report (Annexure P-7). In the circumstances, it would be inappropriate to comment on the authenticity of the FSL report or on the observations made therein as the same is the subject matter of the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioner and others and the veracity of the same is to be gone into in the said case. However, only a brief mention may be made that the FSL report has been received after the order of acquittal dated 21.7.2001 (Annexure P-8) of Rajesh Kumar and Ved Parkash. Besides the petitioner has been in custody since 14.11.2002 and the trial in the case, which is on the basis of a private complaint, is likely to take more time. 7. Keeping in view the fact that it is a private complaint, it would be inappropriate to continue to keep the petitioner confined in jail further. However, it is also to be noticed that the complainant apprehends interference to the investigation at the hands of the petitioner. Therefore, it would be appropriate to extend the concession of bail by imposing some stringent conditions. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioner shall appear before the SHO, P.S. Sadar Palwal every week and shall get himself marked present there during the course of the trial. In case, there is any attempt on the part of the petitioner to misuse the concession of bail, it would be open to the complainant to move for cancellation of the bail. CRM stands disposed of. Petition allowed.