OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat dated 7.7.2005 (Annexure P-1) whereby accused Jai Bhagwan has been granted the concession of regular bail in case FIR No. 68 dated 25.3.2004, under Section 302 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station GRPS Karnal and for taking him into custody.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 25.3.2004 Om Parkash, petitioner made a statement before the police that Naresh Kumar, since deceased, was his real nephew who was alleged to have enticed away daughter of one Suresh, resident of Azad Nagar, Panipat. After that, Naresh Kumar sold his house and started living in village Brass. He, however, kept meeting Rajesh, daughter of said Suresh, stealthily. Jai Bhagwan had extended warning to Naresh Kumar through Om Parkash that he should stop meeting Rajesh, otherwise, he would have to face dire consequences. On 25.3.2004 at about 4.30/5.00 A.M., Om Parkash opened his STD booth and was present in the street. He saw that Jai Bhagwan was coming from the side of park dragging Naresh Kumar from his legs. He kept the dead body in front of old house of Naresh and proclaimed that he had committed the murder of Naresh. When people started assembling there, Jai Bhagwan fled away from the spot. On the statement of Om Parkash, the FIR was registered on 25.3.2004 and investigation was conducted. Subsequently, vide impugned order dated 7.7.2005, accused Jai Bhagwan was released on bail. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition for cancellation of bail.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that accused Jai Bhagwan has been released on bail mainly on two grounds, - firstly, Ram Ratti has been given up by the prosecution, having been won over; and secondly, the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future as complaint filed by mother of the deceased is pending and accused is in custody since March, 2004. Learned counsel argued that while granting bail, the Court has to keep in view not only the nature of the accusation but the severity of punishment. It has also to be borne in mind, if there is any reasonable apprehension of the evidence being tampered with or apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant. It is argued that in the event of heinous crime having been committed, the society needs protection from the elements who breach the peace and tranquillity of the society and rather capable of spreading a reign of terror. Learned counsel further argued that in the present case, the petitioner has submitted a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Ambala vide Annexure P-5 seeking protection and has also filed an application (Annexure P-3) before the trial Court for providing protection to the prosecution witnesses. In the application dated 23.2.2005, Annexure P-3, moved before the Court it was categorically stated that accused are bound to cause harm to the applicant-petitioner and other witnesses and therefore, request was made that Superintendent of Police, Panipat be directed to make proper arrangement for protection of applicant and other witnesses. It was also mentioned in the said application that one such application had already been filed by Rajni Devi, mother of deceased Naresh, who has also filed a criminal complaint and the same is pending for recording evidence of the witnesses and the witnesses apprehend danger to their life. The said application was moved on 23.2.2005. However, the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge has not considered the facts mentioned in the application and granted bail to accused Jai Bhagwan vide order dated 7.7.2005.