PAWAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PAWAN , the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 141 dated 6.5.2011 at Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, for an offence punishable under sections 109, 114, 148, 302, 307, 323, 325 read with section 149 IPC and section 25 of Arms Act.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. According to him, as per the FIR, the petitioner fired a gun shot at Diwan. According to him, Diwan in his statement does not say that any shot was fired at him by the petitioner. According to him, subsequently one Naveen claimed that gun shot was fired at him by the petitioner. Drawing my attention to Annexure P-2, the MLR of Naveen, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was a case of open firing and some stray pellets might have hit Naveen and the description of the injuries in the MLR does not suggest any gun shot having been fired at him. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 27.5.2011.

(3.) THE petitioner is accused of firing gun shot at Diwan in the FIR. Diwan does not say any shot to have been fired at him by the petitioner. He names some other person as having fired at him. The petitioner is said by Naveen to have fired a shot at him. The MLR suggests some stray pellets to have hit him in his left arm. Keeping in view this conflict in the case and the fact that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, I find the petitioner to be entitled to bail. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.