KEHAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the petitioner (Kehar Singh S/o Chotu Ram) submits that he is and old man of 67 years and no injury has been attributed to him. According to him, the role ascribed by the prosecution is that he caught hold of Naveen when he was attacked by Lillu with a farsa. He further says that he is in noway responsible for the death of Anil, who died due to blows given by other persons. He further submits that cross cases have been lodged between the complainant partly and the accused party with regard to the same incident. Further, he submits that the charge-sheet has been filed on the basis of FIR No.73/2003 registered at Police Station J.P. Kalan under, inter alia, Section 307 of the IPC. However, all those accused in that case are on anticipatory bail, whereas all the accused in the present case are in judicial custody. The petitioner has been in custody for over two years. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shriram and Another v. State of Maharashtra: III (2001) CCR 5 (SC), the material portion of which reads as under:-

(2.) The learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail and relied upon two decisions:-

(3.) The gravamen of the contention on behalf of the learned counsel for the State is that when there is a group of assailants and a crime is committed in pursuance of a common object, it is often not possible for the witnesses to describe the actual role played by each one of them and, therefore, it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish the exact overt act done by each accused. In the present case this is not the position as in the FIR itself specific roles have been ascribed. These decisions would not be applicable to the fact situation as obtaining in the present case.