Surinder Kumar alias Monu vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.

FIR 64 dated 18.2.1999 has been registered at Police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala City under section 302 IPC on the statement of Harbhagwan wherein the following allegations have been made :

Vijay Kumar, the son of the complainant was working in Tara Hospital. On 17.2.99, Vijay Kumar after taking his meals, had gone to the opposite tea shop of Sonu for taking tea at about 4 or 4.30 p.m. The complainant was informed that Vijay Kumar was lying in the park vomitting and the complainant went there and saw Vijay Kumar who was vomitting. Vijay Kumar was taken to Tara Hospital, Baldev Nagar and Vijay Kumar told the doctor that Sonu son of Rabel Chand who is running a tea shop, with intention to kill him, and given him a pill and made him eat it saying that it was a sweet pill. That after Vijay Kumar had eaten the pill, he made Vijay Kumar eat a breadpakora and drink a cold drink; that thereafter Vijay Kumar felt like answering the call of the nature; and that therefore, he went towards the park and vomitted. Vijay Kumar wsa then taken to the Hospital of Sant Ram Arora; then to the civil Hospital, Ambala City, and thereafter to the P.G.I. Chandigarh, Vijay Kumar died on 18.2.99.

The petitioner had approached the Sessions Court, Ambala for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. but his request ws declined. He has, therefore, approached this Court for the same relief.

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

The petitioner is Surinder Kumar alias Monu. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the FIR it has been mentioned that it was Sonu who had given the pill. She also contends that even in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 18.2.99, the witnesses, namely, Radha Rani, the mother of the deceased, Suraj Parkash and others have stated the name of the accused only as Sonu, and that it was only on 21.2.1999, in the supplementary statement made by the witnesses, the name of the petitioner was substituted instead of the name of the younger brother Sonu. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that except the alleged dying declaration wherein only the name of Sonu has been mentioned, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that the deceased was working as a Chemist in Hospital, and it is only wholly improbable, that he would take a poisonous pill and eat it taking it to be a sweet pill. But, the learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the father of the deceased had originally stated the name as Sonu by mistake and had corrected the same in his supplementary statement recorded on 21.2.99. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that apart from the improbability pointed out, namely, the deceased being a chemist, taking a poisonous pill believing it to be a sweet pill, petitioneris also sought to be made liable after a lapse of three days, though the name of the petitioner had not been mentioned in the FIR or in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 18.2.99.

In these circumstances, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, but at the same time, taking into consideration the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

Resultantly, this petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Ambala.