Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 527 (PNJ)

Mahavir v. State of Haryana

2012-04-02

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Mahavir, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 15 dated 24.1.2011 at Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh, District Faridabad for an offence punishable under sections 302, 307, 506, 120-B read with section 34 IPC and section 25 of Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, briefly put, is that Narender Singh, complainant had a brother, named, Ravinder alias Fauji. On 23.1.2011, he alongwith his brother Ravinder alias Fauji, younger brother Jitender, uncle Bhopal and cousin Yogender had come to village Machgar for attending a marriage. At about 2.00 AM in the night, after the marriage ceremony was over, Ved Parkash, his relation came to see them off to their Scorpio vehicle, which was parked near Machgar-Bukharpur road. Suddenly, a white coloured Scorpio car came from the side of Machgar and stopped there. The vehicle was not bearing any registration number. Two persons came down the same and one of them took his brother Ravinder alias Fauji in his arms. He pointed his pistol towards the head of Ravinder and fired a shot. Ravinder had bent down and the shot missed the target. Then the two started firing indiscriminately on Ravinder. When Ravinder raised alarm, the complainant and others rushed towards him. The complaint caught hold of one of the two assailants and found that he was Kailash Bainsla. Kailash Bainsla and his companion again fired shots one of which had touched Ved Parkash. Kailash Bainsla got himself freed from the hands of the complainant and started running towards their car. Getting close to the said vehicle, the complainant saw that Mahavir, brother of Kailash Bainsla was sitting in the car and besides him, there was Anil resident of Jumedi and one more boy. They escaped therefrom, threatening the complainant and others to be killed if they did not sell the land of village Bhatola. Ravinder alias Fauji died on the way to Asian Hospital where he was being brought from Escorts Hospital, where he was taken in the first instance. Claiming that they have dispute over land of village Bhatola with Roop Singh Nagar and Roop Singh Nagar had hired the aforesaid persons for killing Ravinder, he lodged the FIR. 3. Ravinder alias Fauji died on the way to Asian Hospital where he was being brought from Escorts Hospital, where he was taken in the first instance. Claiming that they have dispute over land of village Bhatola with Roop Singh Nagar and Roop Singh Nagar had hired the aforesaid persons for killing Ravinder, he lodged the FIR. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the FIR was lodged on 24.1.2011, the complainant moved an application to the police on 29.1.2011 on account of which, his supplementary statement was recorded on the said date. According to him, he has changed the version in that supplementary statement by saying that his brother was killed by Yatender Dalal and Kadir Khan Rao. In the said statement, he also claimed that these persons were seen in the photographs and C.Ds. of the marriage. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in the supplementary statement, the complainant has exonerated Kailash Bainsla. According to him, Mahavir, the petitioner is the brother of said Kailash Bainsla and if Kailash Bainsla had no role in the murder of Ravinder alias Fauji, Mahavir, who is not alleged to have participated in the occurrence, cannot be believed to have any role in the same. According to him, the petitioner is only alleged to have been there in the car and it will be a moot point at the trial as to whether he shared the common intention with his brother, who has been exonerated by the complainant in the supplementary statement. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the photographs and CDs are not made available to the accused and as to what they are showing is still a mystery. He has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody for more than one year and no witness has yet been examined at the trial. 6. Learned State counsel has opposed the bail plea claiming that the case is quite serious. 7. Learned senior counsel for the complainant has submitted on the other hand that four bullets had hit the deceased. According to him, the main person in the occurrence is Roop Singh Nagar at whose behest the petitioner and others have killed Ravinder alias Fauji. He has submitted that Kailash Bainsla is a contract killer and the petitioner is his brother. Learned senior counsel for the complainant has submitted on the other hand that four bullets had hit the deceased. According to him, the main person in the occurrence is Roop Singh Nagar at whose behest the petitioner and others have killed Ravinder alias Fauji. He has submitted that Kailash Bainsla is a contract killer and the petitioner is his brother. He has submitted that supplementary statement has been introduced by the police just to spoil the case. 8. While learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the complainant made the supplementary statement after moving an application before the police and changed the version regarding the persons responsible for killing Ravinder alias Fauji, learned senior counsel for the complainant contends that the supplementary statement is introduced by the police just to spoil the case. It is a fact that Yatender Dalal and Kadir Khan Rao have been arrested in this case and pistol has been recovered from them. Now, this is not the stage for making an exhaustive exercise at finding out as to which version of the occurrence is to be believed. One thing, however, can be noticed and the same is the report of polygraph test Annexure P1, conducted on Kailash Bainsla, Mahabir Bainsla and Anil Kumar during investigation of this case. Eight questions were put to Kailash Bainsla which he answered in the negative. According to the report, the responses of the person appeared to be truthful on all the eight questions. Similar is the position with Mahavir, the petitioner, to whom also eight questions were put and he answered those questions in the negative and as per the report, his responses appeared to be truthful. 9. Even otherwise, the petitioner is not claimed in the FIR to have fired any shot on the deceased. He is stated to have been sitting in the car in which the assailants came. The moot point at the trial would be as to whether Mahavir shared common intention with Kailash Bainsla with regard to the murder of Ravinder alias Fauji. The petitioner is in custody for more than one year and taking into account all these circumstances, I find the petitioner to deserve the concession of bail. The petition is, consequently, allowed. The moot point at the trial would be as to whether Mahavir shared common intention with Kailash Bainsla with regard to the murder of Ravinder alias Fauji. The petitioner is in custody for more than one year and taking into account all these circumstances, I find the petitioner to deserve the concession of bail. The petition is, consequently, allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad.