Sandeep Alias Jhabal vs State Of Haryana

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in a case registered vide FIR No.205 dated 24.6.2020 under Sections 307, 120-B, 212, 34 IPC & Section

25 of Arms Act at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad.

The allegations as per the FIR are to the effect the police received an information regarding firing of shots by 2 youth on owner of Ashok Marble

i.e. Ish Kumar. The police went to the hospital where Ish Kumar was under treatment, who was not declared fit for making statement. Consequently,

statement of his brother namely Ashok Kumar was recorded, who alleged that on 24.6.2020 while he and his brother were present in the shop with

the other helpers then 2 youths carrying country made pistols entered into their shop and asked them to handover money failing which they threatened

to shoot at them. While his brother Ish Kumar rose up from the counter and went towards the youths, the said youths fired from the pistol hitting

complainant’s brother namely Ish Kumar, who sustained pellet injuries on his hand, stomach and on his chest. It is alleged that after firing the said

2 boys along with another boy who was waiting outside made good their escape on motorcycle.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the instant case on the basis of disclosure statements

allegedly made by Vikas and Vakil to the effect that the petitioner had been waiting outside the shop on a motorcycle on which the two assailants who

had entered inside the shop and fired made good their escape. Learned counsel has further submitted that since co-accused Vikas has already been

granted bail, the petitioner in any case deserves the same concession on the grounds of parity.

Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that since two of the co-accused have categorically suffered disclosure statements

nominating the petitioner as an accused, no case for grant of bail is made out particularly since the petitioner happens to be involved in two other

cases. Learned State counsel has however, informed that as on date the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 6 months.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

It is a case where the petitioner came to be nominated on the basis of disclosure statements, the admissibility and veracity of which would be

debatable. Even as per the said disclosure statements, the petitioner had not entered the shop or had fired at the injured and is alleged to be waiting

outside on a motorcycle. In any case since the petitioner has already been behind bars since the last about 6 months and co-accused has already been

granted bail, the petition is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned

trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.