HARISH SASAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HARISH Sasan, Arun Sasan and Dr. Ashok Sasan, petitioners-accused seek pre-arrest bail in case bearing FIR No. 313 dated 14.8.2002 registered under Sections 307, 332, 333, 341, 353, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City. On 16.9.2002, at the outset counsel for the petitioners stated before the Court that Harish Sasan and Arun Sasan, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had been arrested and for that reason petition qua them have become infructuous. Accepting his prayer the petition qua them was accordingly dismissed.

(2.) IN order to decide the prayer for bail made by Dr. Ashok Sasan, petitioner No. 3, a few facts need to be noticed. Due to heavy rain on 12.8.2002, 13.8.2002 and midnight of 14.8.2002 in Ambala, the Nullah adjacent to Baldev Nagar locality was choked and for that reason whole area of Baldev Nagar was inundated and the rain water entered into so many houses which caused anguish to the residents of those houses who sought to give bend to their grievance through agitation. Smt. Veena Chhibbar, M.L.A. on getting to know about the above situation in the company of her gunman, namely, Constable Ramesh Dutt, who is complainant in this case, went to Baldev Nagar so as to render assistance for the discharge of rainy water and to find out the position at the spot. At that time besides other persons Surinder Singh alias Gagu and Chander Mohan residents of new colony Baldev Nagar, Ambala also met her. Noticing the water gushing out of bridge, Smt. Veena Chhibbar went to Barrack No. 1 in order to check whether any rainy water had entered into the houses. While she was passing through the water, Harish Sasan and Sonu, who is real nephew of Harish Sasan and Bittu son of Amar Nath and brother of Harish Sasan having a chemist shop in Baldev Nagar besides other persons confronted them from behind by shouting slogans. When Smt. Veena Chhibbar reached in front of house of Surinder Singh Bhatia, Harish Sasan with the help of other companions blocked her way. Sonu uttered unpalatable words to her and thereafter he pushed her as a result of which she fell down in the water. When the complainant Ramesh Dutt tried to rescue her, he too was given slap and fist blows. It is also stated in the report lodged that the companion of Harish Sasan had caused injuries not only to Smt. Veena Chhibbar but also to him and further threatened to kill the complainant. Smt. Veena Chhibbar was admitted in the hospital. On 15.8.2002, statement of Smt. Veena Chhibbar was recorded by Sub Inspector Randhir Singh during the investigation of the case, wherein she stated that Harish Sasan and his companions Kanwar Sasan, Amit Kumar, Ajay Kumar, Kulbir Chand, Navdeep, Gagan Deep, Ramesh Kumar and 5-6 other persons had come there and started grappling with them. At that time Harish Sasan had given injury to her with umbrella and thereafter Harish Sasan and his companions pulled her in the water in order to drown her and kill her while Dr. Ashok Sasan had given a Danda blow on her left foot. Surinder Singh, whose police statement was recorded on 14.8.2002, had given a similar version as stated by Smt. Veena Chhibbar. Initially the case was registered under Sections 332, 333, 341, 353, 506, 148 and 149 I.P.C. and thereafter offence under Section 307 I.P.C. had been added after recording the statement of Smt. Veena Chhibbar.

(3.) OPPOSING the submissions made, State counsel had stated that though specific attribution had not been made against the petitioner in the report lodged by Ramesh Dutt but in the presence of so many persons gathered, it was not possible for him to recount the event in minute detail and the correct version had come in the statement of Smt. Veena Chhibbar recorded on 15.8.2002 and the statement made by Surinder Singh, on 14.8.2002, which lend credence to the version stated by the complainant. It was further submitted by him that very fact that Danda blow was attributed to the petitioner-accused and his companions had tried to drown Smt. Veena Chhibbar in the water and dirty water had entered into her mouth clearly shows that the petitioner-accused and his co-accused had committed the offence in furtherance of their common object and design to kill her.