Ravinder Singh alias Phala vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.

F.I.R. No. 44 dated 1.6.1999 has been registered at Police Station Mohana, under Sections 395/397 I.P.C. on the statement of Ram Kumar, containing the following, among other, allegations :

The complainant is having a taxi (Maruti Van) and used to park it at the Taxi Stand. On 31.5.1999, at about 2.30 P.M. three persons came and arranged with him for taking his taxi and the hire charges were settled. Two of them sat in the van, and when the van reached Khubru road, they got the van stopped. Two young boys aged about 24/25 years were standing there and they were also taken in the van. Thereafter they proceeded in the van. On reaching the Bus Adda of village Khubru, they told that they had to take one boy. The complainant stopped the van, one of the boys got down and brought one young boy from Khubru Adda. The complainant took all of them in his van and when he reached in between villages Pugthala and Tewdi, one of the boys by name Krishan asked him to stop the vehicle and said that Suresh of Khubruwala would drive it. The complainant got down from the van and sat with them on the back side while Suresh started driving the van. When they reached near villages Tewri and Bajana, Suresh stopped the vehicle and all the five boys took liquor. At 5.30 P.M. they once again started and Suresh was driving the vehicle. At about 8 P.M., when the vehicle entered village Laath Krishan, stated that Bhala and Birbal sons of Chander Singh had also to be taken. They stopped the vehicle in front of the house of Birbal and Birbal was called from the house and made to sit in the van. Then they proceeded and when the van came out of the village, Krishan had showed the pistol against the ear of the complainant, the vehicle was stopped, the complainant was pushed down and they fled away with the Maruti van.

The petitionerRavinder Singh alias Phala approached the Sessions Court, Sonepat, for bail, but his bail application was dismissed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court with this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the same relief.

I have heard the counsel for both sides and perused the records on file.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Narinder, Birbal and Kuldip, coaccused have also been granted bail by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge himself, whereas the petitioner whose case is identical with their case, has been declined the relief. But the learned counsel for the State on the other hand contends that in the F.I.R. itself the name of the petitioner has been mentioned. He referred to that portion of the FIR where Krishan one of the coaccused is alleged to have stated that Bhalla and Birbal residents of Laath have also to be taken. He also points out that in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the petitioner, the van in question was also recovered. Pointing out these aspects, learned counsel for the State contends that the case of the petitioner is not identical with that of Narinder, Birbal and Kuldip and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

But we find from the F.I.R. that though the name of Bhalla is stated to have been mentioned by the coaccused Krishan, the F.I.R. specifically states that the vehicle was stopped in front of the house of Birbal and Birbal was called and made to sit in the vehicle. The F.I.R. does not say that Bhalla was also taken in the van.

This apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that though it is alleged that the petitioner made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the van, and taking it to be true, it will not in any way help the prosecution inasmuch as the recovery is alleged to have been made from open place i.e. in a bush near a drain. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the recovery is alleged to have been made from an open space, the same cannot be successfully used against the petitioner. In this connection, he relied upon the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Trimbak v. State of M.P., AIR 1954 SC 39 and Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1705.

Taking into consideration the arguments put forward by both the counsel but at the same time without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner in this case is entitled to be released on bail.

Resultantly, petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat.