KULWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the incident is of 25.12.1997 and the FIR was lodged 13 days after the incident on 7.1.1998 under Sections 323/307/34 IPC, 25/27/54/59 Arms Act and 3/8 of the Wild Animal Protection Act. The petitioner's counsel submits that in the FIR the petitioner is not named. On 26.1.1998 the injured got his statement recorded wherein he named Jabarjang Singh and Jagdeep Singh, the persons who are known to him at the spot and these were the persons who had committed this offence. He pointed out that even as per this statement Jabarjang Singh and Jasdeep Singh gave Lalkara whereupon the co -accused Narinderjit Singh ran tractor trolly over Hanuman Singh whereby he sustained injury. This statement is also recorded on 26.1.1998. The learned counsel submits that even as per his statement no specific role is attributed to the petitioner. He further pointed out that two accused who are named by Hanuman Singh in his statement have been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. Another evidence collected against the petitioner is that some hydes are alleged to have been recovered from his possession. Petitioner's counsel submits that even this recovery will not implicate him for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The complainant's counsel submits that as Hanuman Singh received grevious injury, he was removed to Bishnoi Hospital, Sirsa and then he was referred to CMC, Ludhiana. As per the police he was conscious on 26.1.1998 when his said statement was recorded. He also submitted that complainant has sent written complaint to the police on the basis of which this FIR is registered on 7.1.1998. He also stated that Harbans Singh and Karkamal Singh named by Hanuman Singh in his statement have not been challaned by the police. The police has already submitted the charge -sheet but the charge is not yet framed.

(2.) THE complainant's learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is also named by Sandeep Kumar and Hanuman Singh when they gave their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After hearing the rival contentions, I am of the considered view that the bail deserves to be allowed. The statement of Sandeep Kumar is not placed on record. The petitioner has placed on record the statement of Hanuman Singh at Annexure P -2. He knew Jabarjang Singh and Jagdeep Singh from before but later on he came to know the names of other accused persons. This list includes the name of petitioner. Even in this statement he has not dislosed the source of information as to how he came to know names of these persons. Even on being asked, the complainant's counsel could not specify as to what was the source of information of Hanuman Singh to name of the accused including the petitioner. Considering all the above facts the petition is allowed. If the petitioner submits the bail bonds to the satisfaction of CJM Sirsa, he be enlarged on bail. The observations made hereinabove will not effect the merits of the case. Petitioner allowed.