ARUN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arun, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 277 dated 3.8.2012 at Police Station Sadar Sonepat, District Sonepat, for an offence punishable under sections 148, 302 and 120-B IPC read with section 149 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. According to him, he has been named 8 days thereafter in a supplementary statement made by Chand Singh, the father of the deceased. According to him, to begin with, he had named Kuldeep, Pradeep and Sandeep. His allegation has been that Kuldeep and Pradeep had fired shots at his son in connivance with Sandeep. According to him, motive as alleged by the complainant in the FIR is that a murder took place in the year 2010 regarding which Kuldeep and Pradeep were pressing Amit to be a witness of that case.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the supplementary statement the complainant has stated that Arun, the petitioner was also present at the spot and that after firing of the shots by Kuldeep and Pradeep, he escaped with co-accused on motor-cycle. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 19.8.2012.

(3.) Learned State counsel, on instructions of ASI Devender Singh, submits that the motor cycle, the number of which was not given in the FIR but was given in the supplementary statement, has been recovered. He admits that the role of the petitioner is only of presence at the spot with motor cycle on which he and his co-accused escaped. It is a fact that name of the petitioner does not appear in the FIR and his name makes appearance in supplementary statement 8 days after the occurrence. In that supplementary statement the role of the petitioner is only of being present at the spot and escaping on motor cycle with co-accused. The question as to whether supplementary statement is believable or not, would have to be decided at the trial after taking evidence. The petitioner is in custody since 19.8.2012. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, I find the petitioner to be entitled to bail during the trial. 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 ' 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Sonepat.