Mahesh@ Naina and Another vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioners-Mahesh @ Naina son of Tirlok Chand and Anand Swaroop son of Rewti Parsad, have directed the instant petition for the grant of regular bail in a case registered against them along with their other co-accused Rahul, Lalit, Pankaj and others, vide FIR No. 545 dated 26.10.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 306, 506 and 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station City Palwal, 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 considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

The prosecution claimed that Omkar Swaroop Bindal, father of complainant-Sunil Bindal, committed suicide and the accused have abetted the commission of the offence. Undisputedly, the deceased was in a property dealing business. The sale-deed, in question, was stated to have been registered in the names of accused Mahesh @ Naina and Anand Swaroop, but all other accused have demanded a sum of Rs. 35 lacs from him. According to the prosecution that the accused gave beatings to the deceased and his wife, which derived him to commit suicide. In that eventuality, the offence punishable u/s 306 IPC is made out or not against the accused, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. Moreover, Rahul, Lalit and Pankaj, similarly situated co-accused of the petitioners, were granted the concession of regular by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (M.M.S. Bedi, J.), by virtue of order dated April 25, 2013 in CRM No. M-6606 of 2013, which in substance is as under:-

It appears that the deceased had purchased a shop along with Anand and Mahesh but the petitioners were demanding a sum of Rs. 35 lacs from the deceased for giving back the shop to the deceased. It is apparent that there existed some money dispute amongst the petitioners and the deceased. Without expression of any opinion on merits of the case, it is sufficient to observe that the petitioners have been in custody w.e.f. 7.11.2012. Since the case of the prosecution is based upon the suicide note and other circumstances, the petitioners, during pendency of the trial, can be released on bail.

Therefore, I see no reason not to extend the concession of regular bail to the present petitioners as well under the similar set of circumstances. Be that as it may, the petitioners were arrested on 07.11.2012. Since then they are in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served in further detaining them in jail. 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 is hereby accepted. The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular 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 petition for regular bail only.