SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE somewhat unusual vehemence with which this case was argued by learned counsel for the petitioners calls for dealing with the matter in some detail.

(2.) THE present first information report was recorded on the statement of Ram Chander, aged 50, on August 27, 1993. It was to the effect that he had civil litigation with his father Bhagwan Dass Tuteja and two brothers Suresh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar. He had gone to the house of his father at about 8 in the morning and had put his looks on two of the rooms. His father Bhagwan Dass, who is living there, abused him and gave him a beating. His father also threatened him that he would send for his two sons. In view of that threat, Ram Chander stayed put there. After about 1-1/2 hours, both Suresh and Ramesh, came there. They also abused him and gave him a beating. Ramesh caught hold of him and Suresh took out a powder from his pocket and after putting the same in a glass of water forcibly forced it down the informant's throat. He shouted for help, which attracted his son Harish. On seeing him, his father and the two brothers Ramesh and Suresh ran away. With the assistance of Mool Chand and his son, he was brought to the Civil Hospital for treatment, where ASI Mohinder Singh recorded his statement after ascertaining his fitness from the doctor. Ram Chander died the same day in the hospital.

(3.) IN response to notice, it appears to have been stated on behalf of the prosecution that report of the Chemical Examiner with regard to the contents of viscera of the deceased had not yet been received. Assistant Advocate- General, Haryana, stated that priority was now being given and the Forensic Science Laboratory will make available the report of Chemical Examiner sometimes after January 26, 1994. It was at that stage that learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the petitioners were entitled to be released on bail as what had been filed in the Court was an incomplete challan and a period of 90 days had long expired. He placed reliance on order dated January 21, 1992, passed in Crl. Misc. No. 190-M of 1992 and Hari Chand and another v. The State, 1977 Crl. Law Journal (NOC) 262 (Delhi). The order above referred is a short order, in which it has been observed that there was no evidence to show even prima facie that death in that case was unnatural. The learned Single Judge of this Court, therefore, allowed interim bail to the petitioner by the aforesaid order. In the other authority, it was held that the investigation had not been completed within 60 days allowed for the purpose and the accused was thus entitled to bail. Both these decisions are clearly distinguishable. In the instant case, the cause of death is very clear from the statement of the deceased, which is rendered admissible as dying declaration. It cannot be said that there is nothing even prima facie to show that the death was unnatural. The deceased was 50 and he died on the day when he was allegedly administered poison by one of the accused, after he had been held down by the other accused. With regard to the challan being incomplete. It will be sufficient to observe that report of the Chemical Examiner is expected to be received soon after January 26, 1994, and in any case the challan cannot be deemed to be incomplete merely for want of the said report. This is so in the sense that even if the report is negative or there is no report of the Chemical Examiner, the trial will have to be held in order to evaluate the evidence with regard to the evidentiary value to be attached to the dying declaration of the deceased. In this view of the matter, I am clearly of the view that no case for bail has been made cut. The application for bail is accordingly dismissed. The trial Court shall expedite the trial of the case. If any unusual delay takes place, it will be open to the accused to move a fresh application.