High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Risi Pal @ Neetu vs State Of Haryana on 15 December, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Risi Pal @ Neetu vs State Of Haryana on 15 December, 2009
   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                  CHANDIGARH


                   Crl. Misc. No. M-34608 of 2009

                                      Date of decision : 15.12.2009


Risi Pal @ Neetu

                                                  .... Petitioner

                               Versus

State of Haryana
                                                  .... Respondent

Present:    Mr. A.K. Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Rajeev K. Takkar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

                               ****


S.S. SARON, J.

Heard counsel for the parties.

The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.218

dated 7.11.2009 registered against him for the offences under

Sections 452, 307 IPC; besides, Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police

Station Lakhan Majra, District Rohtak.

The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint

of Mukesh who is the elder brother of the petitioner. It has been

alleged by the complainant Mukesh that he is living separately from

his younger brother Risi Pal @ Neetu (petitioner) for the last 2-3

years. They are not having cordial relations due to dispute regarding

the partition of land and house. About four years back, the petitioner

had shot the complainant but being younger brother, he forgave him.

On 7.11.2009, the petitioner came to the house of the complainant at

about 7.00 am and asked his mother to handover the ration card. The
Crl. Misc. No. M-34608 of 2009 [2]

mother of the complainant told him that the same had been lost. The

petitioner started beating her. Then wife of the complainant saved

her but the petitioner hurled bricks on the stationary car that was

parked there. On hearing noise, the complainant reached at the gate

of ‘baithak’ (common sitting place) of his house and asked his brother

(petitioner) why he was fighting. The petitioner stated that the

complainant had grabbed the compensation of the acquired land so he

would not spare him. He took out his country made pistol from his

person and fired upon the complainant in order to kill him but he

saved himself. The complainant also brought his licensed revolver

from his house and in defence, fired three times in the air. The

petitioner then ran away leaving his country-made pistol in the street.

Being brothers, the family members forbid the complainant to go to

the Police Station, but the petitioner had not come despite the fact

that the member of the family had called him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner has joined the investigation and the country made pistol

was recovered from the street itself.

In response, learned State counsel has submitted that

though the country made pistol has been recovered, however, the

police is to ascertain as to from where did the petitioner purchase the

country made pistol. Besides, it is submitted that earlier also the

petitioner had fired upon his brother. However, the complainant did

not report the matter being brothers.

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter,

the present is a case where the petitioner had gone to the house of his

brother (complainant) and there are allegations that the petitioner beat
Crl. Misc. No. M-34608 of 2009 [3]

his mother and also hurled bricks on the stationary car that was

parked there. When the complainant came and asked the petitioner as

to why he had created a scene, he then took out his country made

pistol and fired on him. Besides, there are allegations that earlier also

the petitioner had fired upon his brother.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, no ground

for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out.

Consequently, the Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed.

The petitioner in case he surrenders before the Police

within two days from the receipt of copy of this order, his application

for regular bail shall be considered by the concerned Court of

competent jurisdiction within five days thereafter.

(S.S. SARON)
JUDGE
December 14, 2009
amit