Vikas vs State of Haryana

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

The petitioner in this case is one of the accused in the case registered at F.I.R. No. 102 dated 15.6.1995, Police Station Sadar, Panipat, for the offences under Sections 148/149/302/307/324/325/506/102B of the India Penal Code and Sections 25/27/59 of the Arms Act, and has filed this petition for bail. It may be mentioned at this stage that the petitioner had filed bail applications earlier bearing Crl. Misc. Nos. 8722M of 1996 and 14511M of 1996, which were dismissed. The petitioner has stated that he had also filed Crl. Misc. 2354M of 1996 for bail which was dismissed as withdrawn.

The petitioner''s learned counsel has argued that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory shows that the revolver found from the possession of the petitioner was not the weapon through which the pallets were fired. He has also argued that the case is delayed and a school going boy is detained in custody.

Regarding the first argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Haryana, Mudhuban (Karnal), the certified copy of which has been field with Cri. Misc 1182 of 1998. He has argued that item No. XII in the list of description of articles contained in parcels, is the bullet which is alleged to have been fired by the petitioner. At serial No. XVI is the revolver which was allegedly found from his possession and that according to the report, the bullet marked BC/2 was not fired from the revolver marked W/1, which are the bullets and revolver mentioned above. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner is wrongly involved in this offence and this being new ground for being released, he be now released on bail.

The bail application of the petitioner bearing Crl. Misc. No. 14511M of 1996 was dismissed by me. In paragraph 5 of the said petition, it was observed as under :

"Whatever the case may be, the firing by the above mentioned so many person, as alleged, itself shows that the petitioner was one of the gangsters involved in the firing and because of the firing, the death also has taken place. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be presumed to be an innocent bystander and not knowing the result of the firing by himself or by others in the unlawful assembly. The fact that petitioner had a gun in his hand itself shows that he was out to fire in a public place. The release of such a person on bail will not only result in not securing his presence during trial but it will also hamper the investigation and the evidence in the case because the witnesses in the case will not find it safe to depose independently."

With the above observations earlier made by me, the present arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner will have to be considered. On questioning, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the revolver was got discovered by being shown by the petitioner. He also argued that it is a licensed revolver. An important thing which can be cited at this bail stage is that there is a possibility of another revolver being shown by the accusedpetitioner to the police. On questioning, he stated that there is no proof before them to show whether when the police recovered the revolver, it was fired immediately before the recovery. Therefore, the evidence of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory which the petitioner now wants to rely upon will not be of much help to him at this bail stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a school going boy has been detained in custody. However, from his own statement, it is clear that the petitioner was possessing a licensed revolver at the time of the incident and, therefore, it will not be proper to release him merely because he is alleged to be a school going boy.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that petitioner was also injured and was in the hospital and, therefore with the prosecution not explaining the injuries he could get the benefits. He has cited the case of Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 in which the appeals of the accused were allowed and one of the grounds was nonexplanation of the injuries sustained by the accused. This was not the ground taken during the argument in the earlier full application before me.

In view of the above reasons, it will be proper that the petitioner should raise this point at the trial. It may be mentioned that the judgment in the case of Lakshmi Sigh (supra) is a judgment over the order of conviction and not over any bail order. In such a serious case, when this point is taken up at a later stage, I do not find it proper to consider this point at the stage of this bail application.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in spite of various orders of this Court, the trial Court has not disposed of the case. However, the learned Advocate for the State has stated that the trial is delayed because one of the accused has jumped the bail. When this is the position, the delay caused cannot give any right to the present petitioner for being released on bail otherwise it will set up a bad precedent. It may be mentioned here that it shall be open to the trial Court to consider proceeding with the case by separating the trial of the absconding accused if it finds it proper. All efforts also can be made for procuring the presence of the absconding accused.

In view of the above reasons, I find that the bail application deserves to be dismissed.

As a result, this petition is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to take all the necessary steps according to law to proceed with the trial and dispose of the same within a period of six months from today. If the trial Court is not able to dispose of the case within the time mentioned, it shall ask for extension of time stating the reasons for the delay.

The Registry is directed to inform the trial Court telephonically in addition to the information in ordinary course.