Om Prakash vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner-Om Parkash son of Manohar Lal, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of regular bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused Sunil and main accused Sanjay and eight others accused, vide FIR No. 24 dated 14.01.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Sections 149 and 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Sadar Bhiwani, 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 help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

The prosecution claimed that on 14.01.2013, main accused Sanjay came at the spot along with his other co-accused. Main accused-Sanjay gave a sickle (Darati) blow in the stomach of Ravinder (deceased). It was vaguely alleged that all other co-accused also gave kick and fist blows to Ravinder. There is only one injury in the stomach of the deceased and one simple abrasion on the middle finger of his right hand. There is no other apparent injury on the person of the deceased. Initially, the present case was registered against ten persons and during the course of investigation, six accused were found innocent and exonerated by the police. Neither any specific role, nor overt-act is attributed to the present petitioner. The main fatal injury is assigned to main accused-Sanjay (non-petitioner). It is not a matter of dispute that Sunil, similarly situated co-accused of the petitioner, was allowed bail, by this Court, by virtue of order dated 12.07.2013, in Crl. Misc. No. M-8785 of 2013. In that eventuality, I see no reason not to extend the same benefit of regular bail to the present petitioner, under the same set of circumstances.

Be that as it may, the petitioner was arrested on 16.01.2013. Since then he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served in further detaining him in jail. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. The conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the role attributed to the petitioner, totality of other 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 regular bail on his 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.