RAJIV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail to the Petitioner in case FIR No. 267 dated 31.10.2008 registered under Sections 365/302/201/212/120-B IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Sampla, District Rohtak.

(2.) It is contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was not named in the FIR nor any role is assigned to him. Confession of the co-accused and that too, before the police or in the Police Station is not admissible in evidence. He has been falsely implicated. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case titled as Madan Mohan @ David v. State of Haryana,1997 1 RecCriR 713 to state that the disclosure statement is totally unreliable and not admissible in evidence. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in the case titled as Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, 1964 AIR(SC) 1184 to state that the confession of a co-accused person cannot be treated as substantive evidence. It was further contended that the Petitioner is in custody since 18.09.2009 i.e for the last one year and the trial has not progressed. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of this Court rendered in the cases titled as Gurmesh Bishnoi v. State of Haryana,1995 1 RecCriR 593 and Suraj Parkash v. State of Punjab,2001 2 RecCriR 577 to substantiate his argument that character of evidence is one of the grounds which would determine whether a bail application was to be allowed or rejected.

(3.) Heard.