Ajit Singh vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.

F.I.R. No. 442 dated 31.10.1998 was registered at Police Station, Jhajjar under Sections 302/201/34 I.P.C. on the statement of Sarpanch Partap Singh which reads as follows :

On 31.10.1998 at about 8 a.m., when Pratap Singh was in his house, Naresh Kumar of the village came and informed him that he found a deadbody floating in the well situated in his fields. The Sarpanch along with Naresh Kumar went to the well, saw the deadbody and reported that the young boy has committed suicide by jumping into the well. It is on this basis the F.I.R. has been registered. Petitioner Ajit Singh has approached this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.c. for bail.

I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no eyewitness for the occurrence and that the prosecution rests upon the extrajudicial confession allegdly made by the coaccused before one Krishan Chand and the statement of certain persons according to whom, they had seen the petitioner and the coaccused in the company of deceased, who has now been identified as Om Parkash. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner cannot be implicated on the basis of the alleged extra judicial confession of the coaccused without any substantive evidence, and that the alleged statements of certain others who allegedly had seen the petitioner, his co accused and the deceased together lastly, are also unreliable.

I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged extra judicial confession of the coaccused to Krishan Chand cannot be used against the petitioner without any substantive evidence, which is yet to come before the Court.

But the learned counsel for the State contends that Bhim Singh, the brother of the deceased had stated that on 27.10.1998, his brother Om Parkash came along with him in the tractor driven by him (Bhim Singh), that at about 5/5/30 p.m., the petitioner Ajit Singh and the coaccusedParkash and Naresh @ Messu met them, and petitioner called Om Parkash and Om Parkash also went to them. Learned counsel for the respondentState also contends that Bhim Singh had further stated that at about 6 p.m., Om Parkash (deceased) came home, took his meals and left at 7/7.30 p.m. stating that he was going to meet the petitioner and the coaccused. Learned counsel for the State also contends that Joginder Singh has stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that at about 9 p.m. on 27.10.1998, he had seen the petitioner Ajit Singh, his coaccused and Om Parkash at the Baithak of coaccused Naresh @ Messu. According to the learned counsel for the State, Ramesh Kumar has also stated under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that at about 1 a.m. on the night intervening 27th and 28th October, 1998, he was going towards the tubewell situated in the Kalira fields from the side of the fields of Tehar and when he reached near the fields of Azad, he saw petitioner Ajit Singh, his coaccused Parkash, Naresh and Om Parkash (deceased) going towards the fields of Tehar. But the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Bhim Singh, the brother of Om Parkash (deceased) in his initial statement made on 31.10.1998, had mentioned that at about 7.00 or 7.30 p.m. on 27.10.1998, Om Parkash left the house saying that he was going to meet Parkash and Naresh, but did not mention the name of the petitioner at all. He also pointed out that Sube Singh the father of the deceased also in his statement made on 31.10.1998, had not mentioned about the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced copies of the statements of Bhim Singh and Sube Singh made on 31.10.1998 from which it is seen that they have not mentioned about the petitioner at all in their initial statements made 31.10.1998. But it is only in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that Bhim Singh has introduced the name of the petitioner also. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that even in the alleged extra judicial confession made by Naresh @ Messu and Parkash to Krishan Chand, they had only stated that the petitioner held Om Parkash (deceased) by his feet, that they strangulated Om Parkash with a cloth and that later on all and three of them threw the deadbody of Om Parkash in the well. He, therefore, contends that simply on the alleged statements of Joginder Singh and Ramesh that they had seen the petitioner in the company of the other coaccused and the deceased, the petitioner cannot be implicated.

In these circumstances, without meaning to express any final opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the relief of bail.

In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Jhajjar.