Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1555 (PNJ)

Rakesh v. State Of Haryana

2010-05-03

S.S.SARON

body2010
Judgment S.S.Saron, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 19.7.2008 for the offences under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 307, 427 and 506 IPC; besides, Section 25 of the Arms Act. 3. The FIR in the case has been registered on the basis of information submitted by Ram Chander-complainant. It is alleged that some labourers were residing as tenants in the house of Shiv Narain. On 18.7.2008 at about 10.00 p.m., the petitioner and his brother Manda both sons of Lilu and Peru alias Het Ram son of Gaj Raj came to the house of the uncle of the complainant for engaging labour. The uncle of the complainant refused to provide labour and an altercation ensued. The persons who had come, namely, Rakesh (petitioner), his brother Manda and Peru alias Het Ram returned but held out threat to teach a lesson to the uncle of the complainant. On 19.7.2008, the petitioner along with Manda and Peru alias Het Ram, Anil, Partap, Neeraj, Bablu, Chhotu besides 25-30 persons came and entered the house of the complainant after breaking the door. They were all armed. The petitioner and Peru were armed with pistols while Manda was armed with a country made pistol. They damaged the household articles and two motorcycles. The wife of the complainant, namely, Santosh and the sons of the complainant, namely, Anil and Raj Kumar entered into another room to save themselves. The assailants caused injuries. 4. During investigation of the case the statements of the injured, namely, Maman, Ram Chander (complainant) and others were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Maman in his statement specifically alleged that the petitioner along with his co-accused armed with pistol had attacked him and fired a shot which hit the wall. The fire arm used by the petitioner was recovered vide recovery memo dated 11.11.2008. The charges have been framed against the petitioner. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Het Ram alias Peru, who is also alleged to have fired from his pistol but no injury was caused to anyone has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 24.7.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 10388 of 2009. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Het Ram alias Peru, who is also alleged to have fired from his pistol but no injury was caused to anyone has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 24.7.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 10388 of 2009. Besides, it is submitted that Neeraj another co-accused of the petitioner has been granted regular bail vide order dated 30.1.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail. 6. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that there are 14 cases in which the petitioner has been involved. It is submitted that he is one of the main accused in the case and, therefore, is not entitled to the concession of bail. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records. It is not in dispute that Het Ram alias Peru, is co-accused of the petitioner and had fired with his pistol but the firing did not result in causing any injury to any one. The said Het Ram alias Peru has been granted regular bail vide order dated 24.7.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. No. M-10388 of 2009. The bail application of the petitioner has been declined twice earlier on 17.3.2009 and 16.11.2009. On 16.11.2009, the Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-20961 of 2009 was dismissed as withdrawn. It may be noticed that according to learned counsel for the State there are 47 witnesses who are to be recorded in the case and none has been examined. The petitioner is in custody since 12.11.2008. The petitioner is stated to be involved in 14 other cases which are as follows :- (i) FIR No. 320 dated 4.10.2008 under Sections 294/506 IPC, PS Sector 10, Gurgaon. (ii) FIR No. 480 dated 22.8.2008 under Sections 420/120-B IPC, PS City, Gurgaon. (iii) FIR No. 479 dated 22.8.2008 under Sections 420/120-B IPC, PS City, Gurgaon. (iv) FIR No. 100 dated 27.2.2003 under Sections 380/457 IPC, PS Sadar, Gurgaon. (v) FIR No. 93 dated 25.7.2003 under Sections 379 IPC, PS Sector 10, Gurgaon. (vi) FIR No. 80 dated 7.3.2007 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 294, 427, 325 and 506 IPC, PS Sector 10, Gurgaon. (iv) FIR No. 100 dated 27.2.2003 under Sections 380/457 IPC, PS Sadar, Gurgaon. (v) FIR No. 93 dated 25.7.2003 under Sections 379 IPC, PS Sector 10, Gurgaon. (vi) FIR No. 80 dated 7.3.2007 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 294, 427, 325 and 506 IPC, PS Sector 10, Gurgaon. (vii) FIR No. 274 dated 18.8.2008 under Sections 506/34 IPC, PS Sector 10, Gurgaon. (viii) FIR No. 15 dated 2008 under Section 25 of Arms Act, Crime Branch, Delhi. (ix) FIR No. 483 dated 2004 under Sections 382 IPC, PS Sadar, Gurgaon. (x) FIR No. 189 dated 24.5.2007 under Sections 148, 149, 333, 353, 341 and 506 IPC, PS City, Gurgaon. (xi) FIR No. 702 dated 2006 under Sections 323 and 506 IPC, PS Sadar, Gurgaon. (xii) FIR No. 387 dated 2007 under Sections 395 and 397 IPC, PS Sector 10, Gurgaon. (xiii) FIR No. 169 dated 7.5.2007 under Sections 302, 20land 34 IPC, PS Sector 10, Gurgaon. (xiv) FIR No. 233 dated 19.7.2008 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 307, 427 and 506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, PS Sector 10, Gurgaon. 8. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the cases at Sr. Nos. (iv), (v), (vii), (xi) and (xiii), the petitioner has been acquitted; besides, the FIRs have been quashed in respect of cases at Sr. Nos. (vi) and (ix) and in the other cases the petitioner has been granted regular bail. It is also stated that in the case mentioned at Sr. No. (x), the petitioner is not named as an accused in the FIR. He is in custody only in the present case. The petitioner indeed is in custody since 12.11.2008 in the present case, however, till date out of 47 PWs cited by the prosecution, admittedly, no statement of any PW has been recorded. The role attributed to the petitioner is similar to that of Het Ram alias Peru, who has admittedly been granted bail vide order dated 24.7.2009. Keeping in view the number of cases registered against the petitioner and also the fact that the trial in the present case has not even commenced, it would be just and expedient to grant bail to the petitioner by imposing some conditions. 9. Accordingly, on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon the petitioner shall be admitted to bail. 9. Accordingly, on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon the petitioner shall be admitted to bail. The petitioner shall also furnish surety apart from the two sureties of a respectable person of his locality and shall also file his personal bond to the effect that while on bail the petitioner shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour and in case of violation of bond his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.