Ramesh vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner Ramesh son of Dhoop Singh alias Dhoopa, has instituted the instant petition for the grant of concession of regular bail, in a case registered against him along with his other main co-accused, namely, Sona s/o Ramesh, Chand s/o Sunehra and Deepak s/o Rajbir etc., vide FIR No. 7 dated 9.1.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 25 of The Arms Act by the police of Police Station Safidon, District Jind.

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 considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

Initially, the prosecution claimed that on 9.1.2013 at about 10.15 AM, as soon as, complainant Ishwar Singh was going towards Seenk Road from his house, in the meantime, he noticed that main accused Sona s/o Ramesh caught hold of his brother Vicky alias Vikram, whereas other main accused Chand son of Sunehra fired several gun shots, culminating into his death at the spot. It was claimed that subsequently, the complainant has also noticed the petitioner and one unknown boy running from the spot on their motorcycle and they were firing shots. It has specifically been mentioned in the initial version that main accused Chand and Sona were having pistols, caused the murder of Vikram (deceased) and slipped away from the place of occurrence on their motorcycle with their respective weapons. Meaning thereby, the main role and fatal injuries are attributed to main accused Sona and Chand. In that eventuality, as to whether the provision of vicarious liability, as contemplated u/s. 34 IPC is attracted to the facts of this case against the petitioner or not, inter-alia, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court.

Be that as it may, the petitioner was arrested on 10.1.2013. Since then, he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. There is no history of his 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 & circumstances, emanating from the record, as indicated here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, during the course of trial of main case, the instant petition for regular bail filed by the petitioner is hereby accepted. He is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for the limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail only.