ROHIT ALIAS BHIMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.573 dated 28.07.2017 under Sections 302, 394, 397, 120-B, 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Gurugram.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the above noted FIR; that he was not named in the FIR and had been implicated later at the instance of the local police in connivance with the complainant and that he has been indicted in the case on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused.

(3.) It is argued that another case bearing FIR No.293 dated 03.08.2017 under Section 412 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered against the petitioner, was based on the alleged disclosure statement suffered by the petitioner therein that he had snatched the revolver used in the murder of one Surender Rana, regarding which the present FIR had been registered. It is, however, submitted that neither the snatching of the said revolver was proved nor the ownership thereof (i.e. the revolver belonged to deceased Surender Rana), which led to the acquittal of the petitioner in the said FIR with the passing of the judgment dated 17.07.2019 by the Sessions Judge, Jhajjar. While emphatically arguing that once it stood proved in the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 293 dated 03.08.2017 that neither the revolver was recovered from the petitioner nor the same was used in the murder of Surender Rana (deceased in the instant case), the false implication of the petitioner stands duly attested. While adverting to the report of the Finger Print Bureau, Haryana, Madhuban filed by the respondent-State with its reply, it is submitted that the chance finger prints did not tally with the 10 digit finger prints as well as the palm prints. On this basis, it is argued that it clearly shows that the petitioner has no role to play in the alleged occurrence.