Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 168 (PNJ)

Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana

2014-01-20

INDERJIT SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.:- This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.279 dated 15.07.2013 under Sections 302, 148, 149, 109 IPC, Section 3 of SC/ST Act and Section 25/27/54/59A of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Barwala, District Hisar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was posted as SHO at the time of occurrence in the police station and the only allegation against him is that he released some persons and has not reached the spot at the time of occurrence and has not taken care of law and order. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is not an iota of evidence regarding involvement of the petitioner in the murder nor there is any evidence regarding abetment etc. by him to anybody. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that in the case registered under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the petitioner has already been granted bail. 3. Learned State counsel contested the bail application. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State and have gone through the record minutely. 5. As per the case of the prosecution, on receiving information of some dispute regarding the construction on the disputed plot, the present petitioner asked the PCR to visit the site and police officials brought Sunder and Mahinder Gujjar etc. to the police station along with the Scorpio Jeep, who have been released. On that day, in the afternoon, the present occurrence took place in which one person from each side was murdered. There is allegation that the villagers surrounded the police station and in police firing, one more person was killed. The perusal of the record shows that there are only allegations against the present petitioner that he released Mahinder Gujjar etc. and if they had not been released, then this occurrence might not have taken place. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when there was no complaint from any side nor there was any FIR, then these persons could not be illegally detained in the police station. 7. and if they had not been released, then this occurrence might not have taken place. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when there was no complaint from any side nor there was any FIR, then these persons could not be illegally detained in the police station. 7. Learned State counsel argued that there are some call details showing that the petitioner and Mahinder Gujjar were in contact but it is debatable and yet to be proved by way of evidence, whether it amounts to abetment to the commission of the offence or criminal conspiracy. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there may be dereliction of duty. 9. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the fact that at this stage it is debatable whether petitioner can be held as involved in criminal conspiracy or abetment, I find it a fit case where petitioner is entitled to benefit of regular bail. Therefore, the present petition is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Hisar.