IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-10332 of 2009
Date of decision : July 16, 2009
Kaptan and another ....Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. RS Bains, Advocate, for the petitioners
Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana with
Mr. AB Dalal, Advocate, for the complainant
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Kaptan and Nanha alias Shri Bhagwan have filed this petition
for bail in case FIR No. 142 dated 19.5.2008, under sections 307 read with
section 34 IPC and section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Sadar
Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file.
According to the prosecution version, on 15.5.2008 at 8.15 PM,
on the instigation of Nanha alias Shri Bhagwan, Kaptan petitioner no. 1
fired at complainant Rohtas causing him injury.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the only
allegation against Nanha alias Shri Bhagwan is that he had instigated the co-
accused Kaptan to fire at the complainant. It is also stated that Nanha
alias Shri Bhagwan is in custody since 26.6.2008 i.e. for more than a year.
Criminal Misc. No. M-10332 of 2009 -2-
As regards Kaptan, it is argued that he was in custody in some
other case at Meerut at the time of occurrence. However, learned State
counsel and learned counsel for the complainant submit that the remand
sheet of the Meerut case reveals that the petitioner was remanded to judicial
custody on 15.5.2008 to 29.5.2008 but this does not rule out petitioner no.
1 being released on bail on 15.5.2008 after the remand order was passed. It
is also contended by learned counsel for the complainant that the person
who appeared as accused in Meerut case was different from petitioner no. 1,
accused in the instant case. It is also contended that bullet is still embedded
in the body of the complainant. It is further submitted that only two
witnesses remained to be examined.
Keeping in view all the circumstances but without meaning to
express any opinion on the merits, petitioner no. 1 Kaptan does not deserve
the concession of bail and bail petition on behalf of petitioner no. 1 is
dismissed. However, bail petition on behalf of petitioner no. 2 is allowed.
Bail to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty
Magistrate, Jhajjar.
( L.N. Mittal )
July 16, 2009 Judge
'dalbir'