Mohit vs State of Haryana

S.S. Saron, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

The Petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 13.8.2009 for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC; besides, Section 25 of the Arms Act.

In the FIR which has been registered on the statement of Balraj alias Baal it has been alleged that on 12.8.2009 the complainant had gone for a birthday party of his friend, namely, Bijender. They were 15-20 friends present at the birthday party. At about 11.00 p.m. after the party ended the complainant along with his friends Ajay and Ravi Bhardwaj were standing on the road towards Sector 3, Faridabad. At that time, a white colour Tata Safari vehicle stopped near them and Jangli and Billa; besides, Raj and Mohit (Petitioner) got down from the said vehicle. All had pistols in their hands and they fired upon Balraj, Ajay and Ravi Bhardwaj. Mohit (Petitioner) it is alleged fired 3-4 shots upon Balraj so as to kill him. The shots had passed over by his right side. The complainant got perplexed and in order to save themselves ran here and there and a gun shot hit on the back of Ravi Bhardwaj near his spine. Thereafter, the four assailants, namely, Jangli, Billa, Raju and Mohit (Petitioner) fled away in their Tata Safari vehicle towards Ballabgarh. Ajit the companion of the complainant brought his vehicle and got Ravi Bhardwaj admitted in Escort Hospital, Faridabad for treatment. The reason for the grouse was that the complainant and Mohit had money transactions on account of which a dispute had occurred which was going on between them. Due to the said reason it is alleged that Mohit along with his friends Jangli, Billa and Raju, who were having pistols in their hands fired gun shots upon the complainant and with an intention to kill him and a gun shot hit on the back of his friend Ravi Bhardwaj.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the injured witness, namely, Mai Pal (PW-2) whose statement (Annexure-P.1) is on record; besides, Naveen Bhardwaj (PW-5), whose statement (Annexure-P.2) is on record, have not supported the prosecution case. The Petitioner, it is submitted, is in custody since 18.10.2009.

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the Petitioner is one of the accused who had fired 3-4 shots towards Balraj alias Baal-complainant. The said Balraj alias Baal has appeared as PW-1 and has supported the prosecution case. The effect of the statements of the injured witnesses who have not supported the prosecution case and also that of the complainant (PW-1) are to be considered and gone into by the learned trial Court after evidence has been led. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while declining the bail to the Petitioner in his order dated 25.1.2011 (Annexure-P.3) observed that out of 20 witnesses the prosecution has examined 11. Two witnesses have been given up. Besides, FSL report has also been tendered. It is observed that as many as 15 witnesses stand examined and only five witnesses remain to be examined. The trial, it is observed, is at the fag end and whether the accused is guilty or innocent can be determined after appreciating the evidence led by both the parties. At this stage, it was observed, arguable points from both sides were made out. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the trial in the case is nearing completion and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who is trying the case is conscious of the said fact, it would be inexpedient to extend the concession of bail at this stage.

Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the learned trial Court shall consider the case on the basis of evidence and material as produced before it.