ROHIT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present petition under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. is for the grant of the regular bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.507 dtd. 18/11/2021 under Ss. 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 302 and 506 IPC and Sec. 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered with Police Station Matlauda, District Panipat.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the statement of Bir Singh son of Pawan was recorded to the effect that on 17/11/2021 at about 8.30/9.00 p.m. he and his cousin Sunil son of Shiv Kumar were working in the fields near the canal next to the drain. Sunil proceeded on his motorcycle from the fields to purchase some articles from the shop at some distance. Meanwhile, Deepak son of Badlu and Mohit son of Ajab Singh came on a tractor loaded with dirty water and started dumping the dirty water in the drain. When Sunil asked as to why they are dumping dirty water near their fields, they struck Sunil with tractor which was being driven by Mohit. A fight ensued and hearing the noise of the fight, Sudarshan son of Jai Kishan, Sheeshpal son of Mahendra and Sachin son of Pawan, who were present in the nearby fields, reached at the spot and intervened. In the meantime, Deepak called Vikas son of Ramesh, Sandeep son of Ramesh, Ajay son of Omprakash, Rohit son of Badlu (the present petitioner) and Vinod son of Narendra by making a phone call. All these persons reached the spot with knives, gandasis and bindas. Vikas gave 4/5 knife injuries to Sunil son of Shiv Kumar (deceased) and 4-5 knife blows to him (complainant). On the intervention of Sachin, Sudarshan, Sheeshpal and others, they too were caused injuries with knives, gandasi and bindas.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a delay of 08 hours in lodging the FIR and it has been registered with due deliberation. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, he has not been attributed any injury on the deceased. During the course of the investigation, the supplementary statement of the complainant-Bir Singh was recorded and a perusal of the same would reveal that, in fact, the petitioner had come to the spot later when the deceased was about to be taken to the hospital in a vehicle. He also contends that as per the statements under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. of Sachin, Vishal, Jitender, Sudarshan and Sheeshpal (Annexure P-3 to P-7), no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner either on the person of the deceased or on the person of any of the injured. In fact, the petitioner had been working as Fire Technician in a company i.e. Icon Facilitators Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, situated at a distance of 150 KMs from his village and the question of him being at the spot does not arise. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a letter dtd. 16/5/2022 (Annexure P-8) issued by the said company to buttress his arguments. It is lastly contended that no weapon whatsoever has been recovered from the petitioner and only a recovery of a moto cycle has been shown from him. He, thus, contends that since the petitioner is in custody since 1/12/2021 and none of the 29 witnesses cited in the list of prosecution witnesses have been examined, he deserves the concession of regular bail.