Harender @ Dhillu vs State of Haryana

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in FIR No. 405 dated 16.11.2010 u/s 302, 120B, 506, 216/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Sadar Rohtak (Haryana). Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 16.11.2010 at about 11.45 A.M., complainant Balwan Singh received a message on the telephone that his son Sanjay had been attacked by Manoj, Sudhir and Dhillu. The said three persons had fired at his son and had killed him. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal FIR was registered and after completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against petitioner Harender @ Dhillu.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 11/2 years. The complainant had not witnessed the occurrence. Even as per the FIR, petitioner had no enmity against the deceased. As per the FIR, enmity against the deceased was attributed to Manoj and Sudhir. Two shots were fired at the deceased and it was probable that they had been fired by Sudhir and Manoj.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the offence committed by the petitioner was serious in nature and has opposed the petition.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.

The offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. During investigation, statements of eye witnesses were recorded and they are yet to be examined during trial. Merely because the complainant had not witnessed the occurrence at this stage would not be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case as the statements of the eye witnesses were duly recorded during investigation. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the FIR, no enmity was alleged against the deceased is also not correct because as per the FIR as reproduced in Para 2 of the petition, Sanjay deceased had telephoned Manoj, Sudhir and Dhillu that their relative had not behaved properly. It is also mentioned in the FIR that after panchayat elections Manoj, Sudhir and Dhillu had fought with Meenu. They had complained that Meenu had taken assistance of Sanjay. On coming to know about this, Sanjay had met Meenu and all the three accused had fought with Sanjay. A compromise was effected in the panchayat. As per the prosecution case petitioner was armed with a firearm and had fired at the deceased. No ground for grant of regular bail to the petitioner is made out.

Dismissed.