NAVEEN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed on behalf of Naveeen in case FIR No. 335 dated 26.6.2009 registered under Sections 148,149,307,120-B IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station City, Sonepat, District Sonepat. Notice of motion was issued on 26.11.2010.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was found innocent during the investigation conducted by the police. The petitioner has been implicated in this case only because of the reason that he deposed against one well known criminal, namely, Tapeshwar in case FIR No. 352 dated 17.11.2006 registered under Sections 364-A,368,120- B,379, 411 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station Ganaur and the present FIR is the result of deposition made by the petitioner against said Tapeshwar. Learned counsel further contends that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and he is ready to appear before the trial Court Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner has been named in the FIR by the injured himself and out of total five persons, two persons, who fired shot, were recognized by him. Learned counsel further contends that there is serious apprehension that the petitioner can win over the witnesses because of the previous enmity between the parties and moreover nothing has been mentioned by the investigating agency as to how the petitioner has been found innocent during investigation.

(3.) I have heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and have also gone through the contents of the FIR as well as other documents available on record.