Ved Parkash vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J. (Oral)

Heard counsel for both the sides.

By this common order, two petitions Crl. Misc. No. 11500M/2000 and Crl. Misc. No. 13275M/2000 are being disposed of as both the petitions arise out of the same FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 14.4.1998 at 10.30 a.m., and on the same day, on the statement of Vinod Kumar (2nd petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. 11500 M/2000), the FIR 378 of 98 was registered at Police Station City Sirsa in which about 13 persons including Bharat Singh and Nand Lal had been accused of causing death of Sube Singh for the use of firearm. He also contends that the police investigated the case, filed the chargesheet and the case after commitment to the Court of Sessions, stands at the stage of evidence after the framing of charges.

He also points out that nearly after 2 years i.e. on 29.2.2000 another FIR, namely, present FIR No. 79 has been registered at Police Station City Sirsa on the statement of one Dei Ram. He points out that this FIR has been registered on the alleged information furnished by one Krishan son of Ranbir that petitioners 1 to 5 (in Crl. Misc. 11500M/2000) alongwith Om Parkash (petitioner in Crl. Misc. 13275M/2000) came in a car and the petitioners in Crl. Misc. 11500M of 2000 raised lalkara, on which, Om Parkash (petitioner in Crl. Misc. 13275M/2000) allegedly fired a shot resulting in the death of Sube Singh. Learned counsel for petitioners also points out that as per the FIR, Om Parkash and Jagdish were stated to have armed with licenced revolvers which were recovered from Bharat Singh and Nand Lal the accused in the case lodged at the instance of 2nd petitionerVinod Kumar in Crl. Misc. 11500M/2000. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as per the FIR lodged by Vinod Kumar, it is Pawan Kumar who fired the shot resulting in the death of Sube Singh and this Pawan Kumar is proclaimed offender.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, contends that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail inasmuch as the FIR is very much delayed and inasmuch as only lalkara has been attributed to the petitioners in Crl. Misc. 11500M/2000. The learned counsel for the petitioners also points out that even petitionerOm Parkash is entitled to be released on bail inasmuch as it is clear that petitionerOm Parkash has sustained two firearm injuries resulting in the fracture of both his legs. As against this, learned counsel for the State contends that there are two versions and it has to be found out at the time of trial as to which one is correct.

The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the learned Sessions Judge has declined bail only on the ground that the case put forward by the petitioners has to be verified. But he contends that the case set up by the petitioners has been investigated into and found to be correct, and that even charges have been framed by the learned Sessions Judge. He, therefore, contends that the rejection of the request for bail on this ground cannot be sustained.

Petitioners in both petitions have been granted interim bail and they were directed to join investigation. Learned counsel for the State concedes that they have joined investigation also. In these circumstances, but at the same time, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioners in both petitions are entitled to be released on bail.

Resultantly, these two petitions are allowed. In the event of arrest of petitioners in these two petitions on the allegations found in the FIR mentioned in the petitions, the petitioners in both the petitions shall be released on bail on their furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer. However, the petitioners in these two petitions shall abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.