HET RAM Vs. RAJESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a private complaint titled Rajesh Kumar v. Het Ram and others for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the private complaint (Annexure P-1) and he is in custody since 14.11.2002. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier one Harbans Lal had died. Rajesh Kumar (respondent No. 1) and his brother Ved Parkash were tried for the murder of said Harbans Lal. Rajesh Kumar (respondent No. 1) was convicted and sentenced for a period of five years and his brother Ved Parkash was convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment. The petitioner was an eye witness in the said case. Thereafter on 29.10.2000, murder of one Mohinder was committed, for which the petitioner has now been summoned in pursuance of the private complaint (Annexure P-1). In fact, the police investigated the said case and filed challan against Rajesh Kumar (respondent No. 1) and Ved Parkash. The said Ved Parkash and Rajesh Kumar (respondent No. 1) were accused for the murder of aforesaid Mohinder. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide his order dated 21.7.2001 (Annexure P-8) found no incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused therein, so as to examine them under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused were accordingly ordered to be acquitted of all the charges. After the decision dated 21.7.2001 (Annexure P-8), it is contended that the FSL report was received on 10.1.2002 (Annexure P-7). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said report connects the country-made pistol recovered from Rajesh Kumar (respondent No. 1) vide recovery memo (Annexure P-11) with the murder of Mohinder. It is contended that the result of the FSL report (Annexure P-7) shows that the bullets BC/1 and BC/2 had been fired from the country made pistol W/1 and not from any other fire arm and the pistol W/1 was recovered from Rajesh Kumar (respondent No. 1) vide recovery memo (Annexure P-11).

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent also contended that anticipatory bail of the petitioner was declined by this court on 10.10.2002 in CRM No. 28748-M of 2002 and after that he did not surrender and he was arrested and produced before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal on 26.10.2002. Therefore also, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. It is further contended that the complainant apprehends grave interference to the investigation of the case in the event of the petitioner being released on bail.