Kuldeep vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—As identical points for the grant of regular bail to the petitioners are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of indicated criminal petitions, arising out of the same case/FIR, by means of this common order, to avoid the repetition of facts.

Petitioners-Kuldeep @ Mirchi son of Ramphool and Jaibir Singh son of Suresh, have preferred the instant separate petitions for the grant of regular bail, in a case registered against them along with their other co-accused, namely, Azad son of Maman alias Baba, 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.

Notices of the petitions were issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petitions for regular bail deserve to be accepted in this context.

Concisely, the prosecution claimed that, on 15.03.2012, all the accused have committed an unnatural offence and murdered Amit Kumar son of complainant Krishan Kumar, in furtherance of their common intention. The present case was registered against the accused on the statement of complainant Krishan Kumar, father of Amit Kumar (deceased). Indisputedly, the complainant Krishan Kumar (main star witness of the prosecution), while appearing as PW5 in the Court, did not corroborate the prosecution version. Instead of supporting, he has demolished the prosecution version in its entirety. 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, the admissibility, acceptability of such disclosure statement of accused, statement of hostile witness (PW5) and such other circumstantial evidence, against the petitioners, inter alia, would be the moot points to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that, Azad son of Maman, similarly situated co-accused of the petitioners, was granted the concession of regular bail by this Court, by way of order dated 30.05.2014 in CRM-M No. 17782 of 2014 (Annexure P-6). Therefore, in that eventuality, I see no reason not to extend the concession of bail to the present petitioners as well under the similar set of circumstances.

Be that as it may, the petitioners were arrested on 29.03.2012. Since then, they are in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain them in jail. There is no history of their 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 petitions for regular bail are hereby accepted. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their 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 petitions for regular bail only.