Vikas Kumar vs State Of Haryana

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in a case registered vide FIR No. 327, dated 5.7.2019, Police Station Indri, District Karnal, under Sections

148, 149, 302 IPC.

The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Sohan Lal wherein it is alleged that his younger son Ajay was into property dealing and on

account of which Randhir Singh, Jagmal Singh, Sukhbir Singh, Pardeep Kumar, Rahul, Prince and Sachin nursed a grudge against him relating to some

monetary transaction. It is alleged that 15 days prior to the occurrence they had given beatings to his son Ajay Kumar. It is further alleged that on

4.7.2019 at about 11/11.30 pm the aforesaid persons called his son and took him along and he did not return back during the night. On the next

morning i.e. on 5.7.2019 at about 5 am. a co-villager namely Mai Chand informed him that the dead body of his son is lying near the bus stand. Upon

receiving the said information the complainant went to the bus stand and saw that the dead body of his son was lying there which was bearing marks

of injuries on his head, chest, stomach, arms and feet and there were tyre marks on the dead body and a broken number plate was lying nearby. The

complainant alleged that he strongly suspected that the above mentioned persons along with their relative i.e. aunt’s son Robin and other boys

after conspiring had murdered his son.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is nowhere named in the FIR and that the 7 persons who were specifically named in the

same have been given a clean chit and the petitioner has been made an scapegoat and that too on the basis of an alleged disclosure statement made

by one Sandeep, the admissibility of which would be debatable.

Opposing the petitioner, the learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that during the course of

investigation CCTV footage of the place where all the accused had consumed liquor was collected and which clearly shows that the petitioner was

also accompanying them and was a part of the illegal assembly which had consumed liquor and conspired to eliminate Ajay Kumar. The learned State

counsel has further informed that the co-accused Sandeep who was arrested in this case on 18.7.2019 had made a disclosure statement who stated

that the petitioner was sitting in the car which he (Sandeep) was driving with the help of which the deceased was killed by running over car over him.

The learned State counsel has however, informed that the petitioner as on date has been behind bars since the last about 1 year and 7 months and that

he is not involved in any other case. It has further been informed that as on date not even a single PW out of the cited 30 PWs has been examined.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

It is apparently a case of circumstantial evidence. Although 7 persons have specifically been named in the FIR but the petitioner is not amongst the

said persons who were named therein. Interestingly the said 6 persons had been given a clean chit. It may here be mentioned that the Sandeep is also

known as Rahul. The petitioner has been nominated on the basis of a disclosure statement made by co-accused Sandeep @ Rahul who stated to the

effect that the petitioner was sitting in the car which Sandeep was driving which had run over the deceased. The veracity and admissibility of such

disclosure statement would be debatable. In any case, the petitioner has already undergone a substantial period i.e. 1 year and 7 months and is not

even stated to be involved in any other case. In these circumstances further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose particularly

when not even a single PW out of the cited 30 PWs has been examined so far. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be

released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.