PARVEEN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Parveen @ Binna has filed the present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail pending trial in case FIR No.450 dated 07.7.2018, under Sections 148, 149, 307, 323, 406 and 120-B IPC and Sections 25, 54 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, assisted by Mr. A.K. Sehrawat, Advocate has submitted that the present case was a cross version of FIR No.450 dated 07.7.2018, which was lodged against the petitioner and the other co-accused on the ground that at the time when thedemarcation was to take place in the village, a quarrel took place, which ultimately converted into a serious fight and injuries were attributed upon both the parties including the injuries from the gun shot. He has further submitted that so far as the present petitioner is concerned, he was not present at the spot and has been wrongly roped in the FIR. He has further submitted that in the present case main accused Hawa Singh, who was father of the petitioner had fired and he had admitted so in his statement. He has further submitted that although the FIR was registered against the present petitioner and the other co-accused but it was a case of cross version and at their instance the police did not register any FIR because the police was favouring the complainant party. He has further submitted that compelled by the fact that the police did not register the FIR, a private complaint was filed before the Court, which is still pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 11.7.2018 and the matter has been delayed because number of applications under Section 319 Cr.P.C. were filed by the prosecution and thereafter the charges have also been re-framed and the trial has now started. He has specifically stated that the complainant in the present case was earlier examined but due to allowing of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C, fresh charges were framed and the trial has started denovo. Learned senior counsel has specifically stated that there is no other case against the petitioner and the present case was only a case of cross version. He has also relied upon an order dated 05.12.2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by this Court in CRM-M-50791-2019, wherein the co-accused Pawan, who is similarly situated, was admitted to bail.

(3.) Per contra learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Dharambir states that in the present case the custody period of the petitioner is not disputed and it is also correct that the trial in this case has now started and earlier the complainant was examined by the learned trial Court but thereafter when applications under Section 319 Cr.P.C. were allowed, a denovo trial has started and the complainant is again to be examined. Learned State counsel states that he is not in a position to state that whether the petitioner is involved in any other case or not as he does not have any instructions in this regard. So far as the bail granted to other co-accused, namely, Pawan, the allegations qua him are identical with that of petitioner.