RAKESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the present petition preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the benefit of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.520 dated 29.9.2013, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 25 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Sector 10, District Gurgaon.

(2.) Counsel for the parties have been heard.

(3.) The FIR in question was registered on the statement of Bhupinder @ Situ who was stated to be a property dealer. The date of occurrence is alleged to be 28.9.2013 when at about 8.30/9.00 p.m., complainant Bhupinder was stated to be going with his friend Manish on a motor cycle from his village Hayatpur to Gurgaon. At that point of time, some police officials in civil dress were making enquiries as regards the address of certain persons of village Hayatpur and as such, the complainant as also his friend Manish who was driving the motor cycle, was stopped by such police party. It is further stated that one white Alto car came, which was also signalled to stop, but the same fled away. The police party started chasing the vehicle and the complainant as also his friend Manish also started chasing the car on their motor cycle. The Alto car was stated to have stopped in the street leading to the house of Rakesh i.e. the present petitioner/accused. Some boys are stated to have alighted from the car. Meanwhile, the police officials started making enquiries and the allegation is that upon seeing the present petitioner, Rakesh started hurling abuses upon which the police officials stopped him and thereafter left the place. Further allegation is that as soon as the police officials had made an exit, the present petitioner called out certain persons from his house, namely, Bhartu Harijan, son of Bhartu, grand-son of Bhartu, Kala son of Bir Singh Harijan, Sandeep son of Bhagat Harijan. All these persons were armed with lathies, dandas and iron rods. The present petitioner is stated to have given an iron rod blow on the head of the complainant with an intention to kill him. Furthermore, the present petitioner is stated to have fired a shot with a country made pistol and thereafter had thrown the pistol and magazine near the complainant and had proclaimed that he would state to the police that the pistol belonged to the complainant himself.