BALJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer under Section 439 Cr.PC is for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.144 dated 16.7.2009 under Sections 148,149,302,216,120-B IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at PS Israna.

(2.) Notice was issued to respondent-State. Reply has been filed by Sh. Rajender Singh IPS, SSP, Panipat. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 15.7.2009 one Hitesh son of Ved Parkash was murdered by Jagbir etc. The friends of said Hitesh were on a hunt to find the accused Jagbir etc. who killed said Hitesh. It is further alleged in the FIR that on 16.7.2009, Sanju, Satish, Jitender @ Kala, Ajmer, Bablu and Pardeep residents of Chamrara and Puran came in a Safari Vehicle No.HR-99-7323 driven by one Vikram descended on the fields where deceased Bijender and Surender (brothers of Jagbir) were present. The aforesaid accused were joined by Dinesh and Anil. Accused Puran and Dinesh fired shots at Surender and Bijender. Bijender died at the spot while Surender died later in the hospital. Accordingly, the FIR in question was recorded. On the next day i.e. 17.7.2009 statement of Sudesh widow of deceased Bijender was recorded wherein she has specifically stated that Baljit Saini had also fired shots.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated on the basis of statement of Sudesh widow of deceased Bijender, which was recorded one day after the incident. The prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been vehemently opposed by the learned State counsel. It is submitted that the case is at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence and due to fierce animosity between the accused and complainant side there is every likelihood of endangering the life of witnesses, in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that five accused in this case have already been declared P.Os. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the reply filed by the State, in my opinion, no case for grant of bail is made out. In para 6 of the reply, it has been stated that:-