Bijender @ Bablu vs The State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner-Bijender @ Bablu son of Ram Saini, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of regular bail in a case registered against him along with his brother and main accused Narbir Saini @ Sittu, Hari Om and Rahul son of Lila Ram, vide FIR No. 160 dated 26.04.2013, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 506, 452 and 212 read with Sections 120-B & 34 IPC and Sections 25 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Model Town Rewari, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr. P.C. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

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

During the course of preliminary hearing, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.), has passed the following order on June 19, 2013:-

Prayer in this petition is for grant of Bijender @ Bablu, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 212, 307, 452 and 506 read with Section 34, IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, in a case arising out of FIR No. 160, dated 26.04.2013, registered at Police Station, Model Town, Rewari, Haryana.

Learned counsel contends that admittedly the petitioner was not present at the spot at the time of alleged occurrence; that the petitioner is behind the bars from 28.04.2013 and that according to information received by him, the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

Notice of motion for 2507.2013.

Moreover, the prosecution claimed that on 25.04.2013, at about 8.30. P.M., the complainant Rajender Saini, his son Hemender @ Jonu and his wife were present in the house. Then someone knocked the door of his house and called his son Jonu. As soon as Jonu has opened the door, in the meantime, main accused Narbir Saini @ Sittu asked his other co-accused to fire shots aiming towards Jonu. He took out pistol from his pocket and fired shots but the pistol did not operate. Thereafter, accused Narbir Saini @ Sittu was stated to have fired shots towards complainant and his son Jonu. The shots did not hit anybody as they escaped themselves and had a narrow escape. Then indicated accused threatened him with dire consequences and decamped from the place of occurrence, with their respective weapons.

Meaning thereby, even the petitioner was not present at the spot at the time of commission of pointed offence. He appears to have been falsely involved in this case, being brother of main accused Narbir Saini @ Sittu. The mere fact that main accused Narbir Saini @ Sittu, was involved in 14 other criminal cases, ipso facto, is not a ground, much less cogent, to deny the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case, who was not even present at the spot at the relevant time of occurrence. No other specific role or overt-act is otherwise assigned to him by the prosecution.

Be that as it may, the petitioner was arrested on 27.04.2013. Since then he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served in further detaining him in jail. Since, not even a single witness has yet been examined by the prosecution, so, the 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 filing specific affidavit that he will not indulge in any illegal activities in future and on furnishing adequate bail 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, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail. At the same time, it is made clear that if the petitioner was found to be indulged in any illegal activities in future, his bail, bail bond and surety bonds would automatically be deemed to have been cancelled in this regard.