Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 764 (PNJ)

Surender v. State of Haryana and another

2013-06-26

REKHA MITTAL

body2013
Rekha Mittal, J.;— The petitioner has filed application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest in FIR No. 81 dated 30.1.2013 under Sections 449, 302, 34 IPC and Sections 25, 54 of the Arms Act registered in police station, City Rohtak. As per the allegations of the prosecution, on 30.1.2013 at 10-00 a.m., complainant Naveen Kumar and his father Ramkishan (since deceased) went to the site of their house in Shashtri Nagar, Rohtak where the construction work was being carried. Sanjeet son of Anoop, a cousin of the complainant was already there to supervise the construction. Three boys laced with fire arms came there and attacked his father, opened fire and caused injuries to him. Ramkishan died as a result of receipt of bullet injuries. Counsel for the petitioner submits that no person has been named in the FIR much less the present petitioner Surender, who is more than 60 years of age. It is further argued that deceased Ramkishan, while working as Inspector in CIA Staff, Rohtak in July, 2006 killed the only son of the applicant in a fake encounter but the applicant never initiated any action against the deceased. It is further argued that as nephews of the applicant namely, Ashok Kumar and Manoj Kumar @ Vicky have been implicated in this case, the applicant is sought to be entangled in this case by procuring false statements from the accused already in custody. The last submission made by counsel is that no recovery is to be effected from the accused and he is ready to join the investigation. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book. A perusal of the disclosure statement of accused Ashok Kumar (Annexure A-2) reveals that as per the statement made by Ashok Kumar already in custody in this case, he has indicted the present petitioner being one of conspirators to kill inspector Ramkishan after his retirement, to avenge the death of Sandeep son of Surender. At this stage, it is difficult to comment upon the correctness or otherwise of the statement got recorded by one of the accused in custody. The custodial interrogation of the accused is required, therefore, the applicant does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail in anticipation of arrest, which is a concession to be allowed by the Court. At this stage, it is difficult to comment upon the correctness or otherwise of the statement got recorded by one of the accused in custody. The custodial interrogation of the accused is required, therefore, the applicant does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail in anticipation of arrest, which is a concession to be allowed by the Court. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the petition is dismissed.