High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Anoop vs State Of Haryana on 8 July, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anoop vs State Of Haryana on 8 July, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH




                         Criminal Misc. No. M-9175 of 2009 and
                         Criminal Misc. No. M-15986 of 2009

                         Date of decision : July 08, 2009


Anoop
                                            ....Petitioner
                         versus

State of Haryana
                                            ....Respondent


Coram:      Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal


Present :   Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for petitioner Anoop

            Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate for petitioner Manoj

            Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana


L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

By this common order, I am disposing two bail petitions i.e.

Criminal Misc. No. M-9175 of 2009 filed by Anoop and Criminal Misc. No.

M-15986 of 2009, both in case FIR No. 227 dated 1.6.2008 under sections

302,325,506,148,149,109 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act.

According to the prosecution version, both the petitioners

armed with rifles, co-accused Happy also armed with rifle, Randeep armed

with pistol, Vikas armed with gun, Vishal armed with country made pistol

and Mohan armed with gandasi along with 6/7 more persons attacked

complainant party in an effort to grab the plot of complainant party. Happy

fired from his rifle killing Surinder. Randeep fired from his pistol causing
Criminal Misc. No. M-9175 of 2009 and
Criminal Misc. No. M-15986 of 2009 -2-

fire arm injury to Basay Ram. Mohan inflicted gandasi blows to Mukesh.

Complainant Sher Singh was caused injuries by 2/3 boys who were

companions of the accused. Petitioners and some of their co-accused also

fired in the air to scare away the complainant party.

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that

no fire arm has been recovered from the petitioners. However, this is not a

ground for releasing the petitioners on bail when so many persons heavily

armed with fire arms committed murder of one person and caused fire arm

injuries to one more person and also inflicted injuries to other persons in

order to grab the plot of the complainant party. The petitioners had no

business to be there at the plot in question because they do not claim any

right, title or interest in the said plot. It is, thus, apparent that plot was

sought to be grabbed and in that process, murder was committed.

In view of the aforesaid but without meaning to express any

opinion on the merits, I do not find it to be a fit case for releasing the

petitioners on bail. Both the bail petitions are accordingly dismissed.





                                                        ( L.N. Mittal )
July 08, 2009                                                Judge
   'dalbir'