Sattey alias Satbir Singh vs State of Haryana

Nawab Singh, J.—This is an application for bail u/s 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in case registered against the Petitioner and four others viz. Ghanshyam, Bodhi, Rajbir and Pyarey Lal vide First Information Report (for short `FIR'') No. 64 dated March 7, 2007 u/s 302 read with Sections 34 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sadar Palwal.

Story of the prosecution is that on March 4, 2007 at 9 p.m. Bodhi and Ghanshyam (non-Petitioners) came at the house of Ami Chand-complainant and asked his brother Shri Chand to accompany them. Shri Chand accompanied them on the tractor of Ghanshyam''s brother. On March 5, 2007 at 5 a.m. Ami Chand''s dead-body was found lying in the Chowk of the village Aurangabad, that is, village of the deceased.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that Petitioner be allowed bail on the grounds (i) that the Petitioner was not named in the FIR (ii) that the only evidence collected by the prosecution against the Petitioner was that he made a disclosure statement to the Police on May 13, 2007, that is, after two months and nine days of the occurrence and in that too, he has stated that he also caused fist blows to the deceased (iii) that the disclosure statement was falsely recorded by the prosecution because in the post-mortem report all the injuries were abrasions (iv) that co-accused of the Petitioner, Rajbir against whom the allegations are that he put turban around the neck of the deceased, has been admitted to bail by Learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad by her order dated August 9, 2007 (v) that the complainant Ami Chand has already been examined as PW-1 before the trial Court and he has not stated even a word against the Petitioner with regard to his participation in the alleged commission of crime of murder of his brother (vi) that the Petitioner is in custody since May 30, 2007.

This Court would not like to discuss the evidence collected in detail so far by the prosecution because it may prejudice the case of either party. It has been held by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in a recent judgment Kumari Sujman Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. 2007(2) RCR(Cri) 65: 2007(1) RAJ 918 that detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court while passing orders on bail applications, yet a Court dealing with the bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not necessary.

Taking into consideration the grounds the which the bail has been sought convincing, this Court is of opinion that it is a fit case to grant concession of bail. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing bail-bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court.