JAGBIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in the case registered against him for the offences under Section 307 etc. of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

(2.) THE FIR in the case has been recorded on the statement of Jasbir Singh. It is alleged that on 4.7.2007 some respectables of the village had gone to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani for lodging a complaint against Sarpanch Dhano Devi, mother of the petitioner. It was alleged that Sarpanch was not discharging her duties properly. The sons of the Sarpanch, namely, Jagbir Singh (petitioner) and Sunil sons of Dharampal, Satbir Bambla and Karambir were also with them. They had a quarrel with regard to the complaint that had been made against the Sarpanch. In this regard on 5.7.2007, a Panchayat had been convened in the village. The complainant Jasbir Singh was also present. When deliberations were going on. Jagbir (petitioner), Billu son of Dilbag, Karambir and Satbir Bambla came in a Tavera car which was driven by Sunil son of Dharampal. After alighting from the vehicle Sunil proclaimed that he was the person who got his mother suspended and today he would be killed. The other persons got down with the weapons in their hands. Karambir and Satbir caught hold of the complainant and Sunil gave a slap on his face. Billu gave fist blow on his abdomen. Thereafter, Jagbir (petitioner) put the revolver on the head of the complainant and fired a shot with an intention to kill the complainant. The shot hit the complainant on the backside of his head. On hearing the firing Nasib Singh, Jaibir and Leela, residents of the village raised a 'Lalkara' to catch them. On hearing this all the accused ran away. Therefore, the role which is attributed to the petitioner in the FIR is that he put a revolver on the head of the complainant Jasbir Singh and fired a shot with an intention to kill him. The shot hit on the backside of the head of the complainant.

(3.) AFTER giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner is said to have fired a shot from his pistol at the head of the complainant. In case the report of the DSP is that Satbir has caused the injury, it is for the Police not to arrest the petitioner. It is well known that the Police is not always bound to arrest an accused even if there are allegations against him of having committed a cognizable offence. Therefore, keeping in view the nature of allegations that the petitioner fired a shot on the head of the complainant Jasbir Singh which hit on the backside of the head, the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of pre -arrest bail.