Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 335 (PNJ)

Balkishan v. State Of Haryana

2005-03-02

S.S.SARON

body2005
Judgment S.S.Saron, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioners-Balkishan and Sumer Chand in case FIR No. 170 dated 28.12.2003 registered at Police Station, Rori, District Sirsa for the offences under Sections 302, 452, 323, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As per allegations in the FIR, the petitioners along with other co-accused came in the evening at about 7.00 P.M. on 28.12.2003 and caused injuries to Bharat Singh, the brother of complainant-Madan Lal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that no specific injury has been attributed to any of the petitioners. Besides, as per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioners are said to have been armed with lathis and gave lathi blows which hit on the hands and shoulder of the deceased. It is also contended that there is no injury on the vital part of the brain and occipital region in the post-mortem report, which can be said to have been caused by the petitioners. Besides, the co-accused of the petitioners, namely, Dharam Chand and Ashok Kumar have been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 9.9.2004 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 34097-M of 2004. As such, it is contended that the petitioners are entitled to bail. In response, learned counsel for the State and the complainant submit that the petitioners are not entitled for concession of bail as they are responsible for causing the death of Bharat Singh along with others and in any case, they are liable for the offence under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides, it is contended that as per the post-mortem report of Bharat Singh, the cause of death in the case has been described as due to multiple injuries on vital organs, like brain, spleen and lung which have been opined to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is appropriate to notice that FIR in the case was registered on 28.12.2003 and the petitioners were arrested on 31.12.2003 and since then they are in custody. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is appropriate to notice that FIR in the case was registered on 28.12.2003 and the petitioners were arrested on 31.12.2003 and since then they are in custody. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the prosecution has filed an application in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning additional accused and, proceedings in respect of the same are going on. Therefore, trial in the case cannot be said to have made any progress and now a de novo trial is likely to be started. Keeping in view the fact that the co-accused of the petitioners, namely, Dharam Chand and Ashok Kumar have been granted bail and the fact that the petitioners are in custody for the last one year and two months and also the fact that trial in the case has not made any substantial progress, it would be just and expedient to extend the concession of bail to the petitioners. In the circumstances, the petitioners are admitted to bail on their furnishing personal bonds and surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa. Crl. Misc. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.