Sanjay vs State of Haryana

S.S. Saron, J.—Heard counsel for the parties.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 17.12.2003 alleging the commission of offences under Sections 148/149/323/452/302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Gulabo wife of Hari Om. It is alleged by her that on 17.12.2003 she was present at her house. Dharmender who is sister-in-law''s son of the complainant had come there. At about 12 O'' clock during the day time somebody knocked at the door of their house and the gate was opened by the complainant Gulabo. In the street she saw Ram Kumar son of Parse, wife of Parse, Ram Kishan son of Parse, Siti and Sunita both daughters of Ram Kumar were standing at the door. As soon as the door was opened all the four women attacked the complainant-Gulabo and pushed her inside her house while beating her. At that time, Ram Kumar son of Parse, Vinod resident of Bawana his son-in-law, Jite of village Ahulana, Shamsher son of Sher Singh, Ashok son of Pyare who had pistols along with Jai Bhagwan, Ram Kishan, Nanha son of Inder, Ram Chander son of Pyare, both sons of Raj Singh i.e. Mota and the younger one entered the house. Jai Bhagwan, Ram Chander, Mota and his brother caught hold of Dharmender son of the sister-in-law of the complainant while he was lying on bed and took him to courtyard from the room. The complainant tried to intervene but the four women caught hold of her and threw her on the floor and kicked and slapped her. In the Courtyard, Dharmender son of the sister-in-law of the complainant was shot at indiscriminately by Ram Kumar, Vinod, Jite, Shamsher and Ashok from their pistols. He fell in the courtyard on receiving bullet injuries. Then Ram Kumar said his work had been finished. He then asked the complainant as to where was her mother-in-law. The complainant replied that she did not know, Ram Kumar then said that she must be in the ''Gher''. Then all of them went running towards the ''Gher''. The complainant took care of Dharmender but he had died due to the bullet injuries. Then she ran after the accused and reached their ''Gher''. Then wife of Ram Kishan, wife of Ram Kumar, Siti and Sunita both daughters of Ram Kumar had caught hold of the sister-in-law of the complainant namely Birmati, Sunita daughter of Balwan, Sarita daughter of Randhir were with the mother-in-law of the complainant in the ''Gher''. Jai Bhagwan @ Baba, Ram Chander, Nanha, Mote and his brother encircled the mother-in-law of the complainant, namely, Chameli, and Ram Kumar, Vinod, Jite, Shamsher and Ashok shot at her indiscriminately. Mother-in-law of the complainant fell on the ground due to bullet injuries. All the assailants then fled away. The cause of enmity was that in 2001, the husband''s elder brother (Jeth) of the complainant was murdered by Ajay Vir @ Tani son of Ram Kumar, his brother in law (Jija) Vinod and Jita of Ahluana by shooting him in the fields. The mother-in-law of the complainant namely Chameli was to depose in the Court on the next day of the incident.

According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not named as an accused in the FIR. It is also stated that Gulabo complainant does not state that there were any unidentified persons with the assailants. Initially sixteen persons were named in the FIR. Out of them ten persons were exonerated by the police as they were found innocent and they were found to be not present at the place of occurrence. All the co-accused including main accused have been acquitted by the learned trial Court vide four separate judgments dated 1.10.2004, 10.6.2005, 4.12.2006 and 15.5.2008 respectively. It is stated that Gulabo-complainant had deposed thrice earlier in the trial Court and she had not supported the case of the prosecution. The statement (Annexure P-2) made by her on 15.5.2008, in the Court has been placed on record. It is also stated that there is no motive for the petitioner to commit the murder, besides, the petitioner is in custody since 10.4.2009. He was earlier declared a proclaimed offender.

In response, the learned Counsel of the State has submitted that petitioner had been absconding and in case bail is granted to him he is likely to again abscond.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter.

It may be noticed that the co-accused of the petitioner have been acquitted as the complainant-Gulabo did not support the prosecution case. Accused Ram Kumar was acquitted in the case by the learned Addl. Session Judge, Jhajjar vide judgment dated 1.10.2004. Accused Parmod @ Kala and Hardeep @ Hari were acquitted by the learned Addl. Session Judge, Jhajjar vide judgment dated 10.6.2006 and four other accused namely, Vinod, Ajit, another Vinod and Jai Ram were acquitted by the learned Addl. Session Judge, Jhajjar vide judgment dated 4.12.2006 and 15.5.2008. The present petitioner could not be arrested and, therefore, he was declared a proclaimed offender. He was arrested on 10.4.2009 and since then he is in custody. The trial in the case is likely to take time. Out of sixteen witnesses, only ten witnesses have been examined. On the last date of hearing i.e. 13.8.2010, this Court observed that the learned Trial Court shall make every effort and endeavour to record the evidence of the six witnesses, who had been summoned for 16.8.2010. However, on the said date, no witness was examined as none was produced by the prosecution. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record copy of the order dated 16.8.2008 passed by the learned Trial Court. In terms thereof, bailable warrants of arrest were issued against witness Kartar Singh SI which were received back with a request along with photo copy of Out Patient Card. Bailable warrants of arrest issued against witness C. Satnarayan were received back with the report that he has gone on casual leave. Bailable warrants against the witnesses have now been issued for 4.10.2001. The fact that the petitioner was earlier a proclaimed offender can be safeguarded by imposing stringent conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner on furnishing two heavy sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar shall be admitted to bail.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.