SANJEEV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.100 dtd. 26/2/2020, registered under Ss. 302/34 IPC Police Station City Mahendergarh, District Mahendergarh.

(2.) FIR in the present case was recorded on the statement given by one Rajbir to the effect that on 23/2/2020, his nephew Krishan had gone out to attend a marriage but did not return. On 24/2/2020, a phone call was received by the wife of Krishan that dead body of a person was found lying in a jungle (Bani) near village Beri and Jasawas and at some distance, a mobile phone was also found, the number of which was registered in the name of Krishan and on this basis, the FIR was registered against some unknown persons. Investigation was carried out and on the basis of the details of the calls made from the phone of the deceased, the present petitioner and one Ankit were joined in investigation and were arrested and the disclosure statements of the petitioner and the said Ankit were recorded and thereafter the challan was presented against them.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case the petitioner has not been named in the FIR. In fact, the present FIR has been registered against unknown person. Even as per the challan, there are no details of conversations exchanged between the petitioner and the deceased and the petitioner is sought to be roped in the present case solely on the basis of some call records recovered from the phone of the deceased wherein calls were found to have been made to the petitioner. It is submitted that even as per the disclosure statement, at best the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner alongwith Ankit and the said deceased had gone together and had consumed liquor together. After the petitioner had come back to his house, a call was made by Krishan (deceased) asking him to join him in the forest alongwith Ankit so that they could have some more liquor and while having liquor, the said Krishan had told the petitioner that he wanted to sleep in the house of the petitioner where some ladies were present and that a sudden fight had then taken place and when Krishan (deceased) abused the petitioner, the petitioner allegedly picked up the wooden stick (Danda) lying in the house and hit the deceased on his head and thereafter gave several injuries on the body of Krishan. It is submitted that the disclosure statement is a very weak piece of evidence and even going by the disclosure statement, it is submitted that, it is a case of sudden fight without there being any pre-planning. Even as per the prosecution version, the petitioner, Ankit and the deceased were having drinks together voluntarily. It is submitted that the version given in the disclosure statement is not substantiated inasmuch as it is mentioned in the disclosure statement that there was blood of the deceased on the pant of the petitioner but however, when the pant of the petitioner was recovered, the same did not have blood stains. It was stated that the same had been washed. It is further submitted that as per the disclosure statement, the petitioner and Ankit had inflicted many injuries on the head and body of the deceased. A perusal of the post mortem report would show that there were only four injuries, out of which three injuries were abrasions and had the petitioner and Ankit inflicted injuries on the head and body of the deceased with bricks, then there would have been some fractures or other serious injuries and not merely abrasions.