IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-17594 of 2009
Date of Decision:- 24 .08.2009
Suresh and another ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
***
Present:- Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Deepinder Brar, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Yash Pal Malik, AAG, Haryana.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
The present petition is for grant of regular bail.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the FIR, as a
whole is taken to be a gospel truth, then also the allegation against
petitioner No.1 Suresh is that he was armed with a pistol. He contends that
there is no role/motive attributed to him either in the form of a threat or
having used the fire arm. He submits that although another person is also
alleged to have been carrying a licensed pistol on his shoulder, namely,
Rajbir, but in the whole incident, no fire-arm has been used. As regards
petitioner No.2, Rajesh, counsel for the petitioner contends that he is
alleged to have been armed with a Gandasi. His contention is that no injury
has been attributed to him and even if considering the assertion made by the
counsel for the State, the injury with the Gandasi as per the statement of the
injured is on the head of the injured. Counsel for the petitioners, therefore,
submits that there is no co-relationship between the injury which is now
Crl.Misc.No.M-17594 of 2009 -2-
being foisted upon the petitioners being injury No.6 which according to the
prosecution has led to the amputation of the leg of the injured and when
there is no statement co-relating the injury of petitioner No.2-Rajesh with
the fracture of the right leg which led to the amputation of the said leg, the
benefit of doubt should be given to the petitioners. He further contends that
the petitioners are in custody since 1.1.2009 and the trial has not proceeded
since then as one of the co-accused has been arrested on 19.8.2009 and
challan against him has not been presented as yet and, therefore, the trial is
not likely to conclude soon. He further contends that as far as the
petitioners are concerned, the investigation is complete and the challan
stands presented against them and keeping them in further custody would
not be of any use. On this basis, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioners.
On the other hand, counsel for the State and the complainant
admit that there has been no use of firm arm in the incident, however,
counsel for the complainant presses that because of petitioner No.1 being
armed with a pistol which was an impediment for the other people to come-
forward and help the injured, especially when it was planned in such a
manner to cause injuries to the victim Sukhbir Singh, petitioner No.1
should not be released on bail. As regards petitioner No.2, counsel for the
complainant presses that injury No.6 was the injury which was caused with
the Gandasi, which according to the FIR, was being carried by Rajesh-
petitioner No.2. He contends that the injury which has been caused by
Rajesh-petitioner No.2 has led to the amputation of the leg of the injured
and, therefore, he should also not be granted bail. Counsel for the State
also supports the contention which has been raised by the counsel for the
Crl.Misc.No.M-17594 of 2009 -3-
complainant. It has further been informed that the next date of hearing
before the trial Court is 9.10.2009.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the
records of the case. As far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, he is only
alleged to be armed with a pistol but since there is no use of fire arm in the
incident and petitioner No.1 being in custody since 1.1.2009 and the
investigation being complete qua him, no useful purpose would be served
by further keeping him in custody and, therefore, he (petitioner No.1) is
directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
As far as petitioner No.2-Rajesh is concerned, he is stated to be
armed with a Gandasi and as per the statement of the counsel for the State,
the injured had stated that the injury which has been caused to him was on
his head while counsel for the complainant presses that injury No.6 has been
caused by a Gandasi. In this view of the matter, the assertions as put-forth
by the respective parties would be looked into and decided at the stage of
trial when the evidence is led by the prosecution in support thereof.
Petitioner No.2 also is in custody since 1.1.2009 and qua him also, the
investigation is complete. Therefore, he is also directed to be released on
bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Petition stands disposed of.
August 24, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE