SURENDER @ SONU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.428 dated 26.10.2016 registered under Sections 120-B / 302 / 34 IPC and Sections 25 / 54 / 59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Sadar, Sonepat.

(2.) FIR was registered at the instance of Surjit with the allegations that on 26.10.2016, his son Narender along with Mandeep and Pradeep were going to Sonepat on a motorcycle. His son Narender was driving the motorcycle, whereas Mandeep and Pradeep were pillion riders. Complainant was following them on a separate motorcycle. After covering some distance, two boys came on a motorcycle from behind with muffled faces and brought their motorcycle near the motorcycle of Narender. They fired upon Narender and then fled away from the spot.Ultimately, Narender succumbed to injury. Complainant alleged that about 7-8 months prior to the occurrence, there was a quarrel between Narender and father of Ravinder. Complainant lodged the FIR against unknown persons who came on motorcycle and fired upon Narender. Thereafter on 27.10.2016, complainant got recorded his supplementary statement, implicating Ravinder son of Jai Narain with the allegations that there was altercation with his son Narender and father of Ravinder some time back and complainant met the police in the police station and deposed that 15 days ago, Rajiv @ Raja had asked either to cut your hands and legs, otherwise you will be killed as you had inflicted injuries to father of Ravinder. The said fact was disclosed by son of the complainant to him. He further alleged that on 26.10.2016, Rajiv @ Raja while passing through near his house, had asked him that he had killed Narender and now the complainant would be killed. With these allegations, supplementary statement was got recorded by the complainant. While appearing in the Court as PW 1, complainant further deposed that about 2 months after the incident, he had stated before the police that Surender @ Sonu (petitioner) was also involved in the murder of his son as he had given information regarding moments of his son to the main accused. Petitioner was implicated with the aid of Section 120-B IPC. The bail of the petitioner was declined primarily on the ground that he was involved in five other cases of serious nature in addition to the present case and he was involved in doing raki in the present case.

(3.) The prayer has been opposed by the learned State Counsel by producing status of seven other cases.