Bhola vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—As common questions for consideration are involved in both the petitions for regular bail arising out of the same case, therefore, I propose to dispose of the same, vide this common order in order to avoid the repetition.

Having exercised their right of bail and lost in the Court of Session, the petitioners Bhola son of Rajan and Badlu alias Tara Chand, have applied for regular bail, in a case registered against them, alongwith their seven other co-accused, vide FIR No. 457 dated 21.11.2009, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 302, 364, 201 and 396 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Palwal, District Palwal, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Notice of the petitions was issued to the State.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the petitioners are entitled to regular bail in the instant case.

As is evident from the record that originally, complainant Krishan Chand, father of deceased Satish, made the statement before the police on 13.11.2009, which formed the basis of the FIR, that Gopal son of Budhiram Jogi was responsible for causing the death of his son Satish. Subsequently, vide his another statement made before the police on 10.12.2009, he has stated that Gopal is innocent and the petitioners and their other co-accused are responsible for committing the murder of his son.

It is not a matter of dispute that there is no direct evidence against the petitioners. The case of the prosecution revolves around the circumstantial evidence. Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence would be complete or not, will be the moot point, to be decided by the trial Court. The prosecution has only pressed into service the evidence of recovery of battery of the three wheeler from Bhola Ram petitioner and cash of Rs. 200/- from Badlu alias Tara Chand petitioner. There is no other evidence available with the prosecution at this stage. Moreover, the petitioners were arrested on 12.12.2009 and since then they are in judicial custody. Even as charges have not been framed against them, therefore, the conclusion of trial will naturally take long time. There is no previous history of involvement of the petitioners in any such case. No purpose will be served for further detaining them in custody. Above all, the basic rule is bail and not jail in such like cases of weak evidence.

Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the petitioners are directed to be released on regular bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/or in his absence, Duty Magistrate, Palwal.

However, it is made clear that nothing recorded herein above would reflect on the merits of the case, in any manner, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the present petitions.

The instant petitions are disposed of accordingly.