Azad vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner-Azad son of Maman alias Baba, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of regular bail, in a case registered against him along with his other main co-accused, namely, Jaibir son of Suresh and Kuldeep @ Mirchi son of Manphool, vide FIR No. 117 dated 17.03.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 377 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, by the police of Police Station Urban Estate Rohtak.

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

Tersely, the prosecution claimed that, on 15.03.2012, main accused Jaibir and Kuldeep committed an unnatural offence and murdered Amit Kumar son of complainant Krishan Kumar. The present case was registered against the accused on the statement of complainant Krishan Kumar. It is not a matter of dispute that, he while appearing as PW 5 in the Court did not support the prosecution case and has resiled from his previous statement even against the main accused Jaibir and Kuldeep. Not only that, neither the name nor any role or particular injury is attributed to the petitioner in the FIR. He was subsequently involved in this case on the disclosure statement of his co-accused Kuldeep Singh. Indisputedly, there is no direct evidence on record against the accused. The case of the prosecution revolves around the circumstantial evidence. What is the evidentiary value and admissibility of such disclosure statement of co-accused, statement of hostile witness and such circumstantial evidence, against the petitioner, inter alia, would be the moot points to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court.

Moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 29.03.2012. Since then, he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. The final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant petition for regular bail is hereby accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case during trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail only.