JAI BHAGWAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for grant of bail bythe petitioner. He is being prosecuted in FIR No. 254 dated 7-10-91registered in PS Timar Pur under Sections 302/307/120B/34 Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

(2.) I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for theparties. The case of the prosecution is that on 7-10-91 at about 4.45 p.m.accused Pramod, Umesh, Rampal, Rajinder, Satish and another person whowas not known to the complainant but whom he could identify on beingshown, came in two Maruti cars bearing Nos.DAC 1314 and DA-4417.The first car belongs to Rampal accused and it was he who had driven thecar at the relevant time. The other car is alleged to have been driven byPramod accused. These two cars are alleged to have stopped in front of theoffice of the Ganesh Property Dealers. All the accused except the unknownone to the complainant alighted from the cars. Three of them were armedwith Pistols while another was armed with a rifle. The deceased PawanKumar was a partner of the aforesaid firm and he was the brother of theinformant Gyaneshwar. Rajinder, co-accused enquired from Ravinder &Aunte about the deceased Pawan Kumar. Ravinder called the deceasedfrom bebind the office and as soon as he entered the main door of the office,Rajinder, co-accused told the deceased that on the earlier occasion he hadescaped but that they will not leave him that day. On saying this the fourco-accused with their respective weapons showered bullets upon PawanKumar deceased on account of which he fell there itself. Thereafter theaccused persons made good their escape from there, while firing shots fromtheir respective weapons, in Car No. DAQ 4417. The other by-standerswere also injured from the bullets injuries. Pawan Kumar succumbed tothe injuries. One of the by-standers also died. The occurrence was witnessed by the informant and others.

(3.) The contention on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioneris that no role is assigned to the petitioner in the whole transaction and he issimply stated to be sitting in the car while the occurrence took place and,therefore, no case is made out against him. In this respect, learned Counselfor the State contended that test identification parade was held on 20-12-1991and the complainant Gyaneshwar had identified the petitioner also as theperson who was sitting in the car at that time. The car was driven by thepetitioner from the spot after the other co-accused sat in that car. It mayalso be noted that the other Car DAC 1314 was left at the spot by theaccused persons. There is history of previous litigation also between theparties as pointed out by learned Counsel for the State. There was a plot ofland belonging to Inder Pal Tomar, one of the prosecution witnesses whichwas allegedly illegally occupied by the accused persons. One of the witnesseshas named the petitioner also as one of those who had illegally occupied theland and the deceased had somehow got vacated that piece of land from theco-accused and the petitioner. It may further be noted that Inder PalTomar who was a material witness in this case has also been shot deadduring this period, and learned Counsel for the State contends that he hasbeen shot dead at the instance of the supporters of the accused persons.