CHAMKAUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRM No.42709 of 2018 This application has been moved for placing on record the final report under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C along with documents as Annexure P-6 (colly) and also for exemption from filing certified copy of the same. Criminal Misc. Application is allowed as prayed for and Annexure P-6 (colly) with the application is taken on record. CRM-M No.35765 of 2018 Petitioner-Chamkaur Singh has filed the present petition under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail to him in case FIR No.345 dtd. 27/8/2017 registered under Ss. 145, 146, 150, 151, 152, 153, 121, 121-A, 216 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula during pendency of the trial.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case, whereas, he was not involved. He has been implicated on the basis of disclosure statement made by co- accused. The name of the petitioner was not mentioned even in the disclosure statement. The meeting was held on 17/8/2017 and the petitioner was in Punjab on that date as is clear from the tower location of the mobile. He was not reflected in any photograph or video. As per case of the prosecution, the FIR was registered on the basis of statement of Sanjeev Mahajan, Incharge, Dainik Bhaskar, Tricity, stating that he was present at Hafed Chowk, Panchkula and clicked the photographs of the alleged occurrence of violence and published in Daily Newspaper Dainik Bhaskar dtd. 26/8/2017.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 13/9/2017 with the aid of Sec. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The story of the prosecution does not appear to be believable as number of persons, who were standing there, have been made as accused. The petitioner has been shown to have participated in the meeting held on 17/8/2017, where the entire alleged conspiracy to commit rioting was planned. Learned counsel also submits that the prosecution has relied upon an affidavit of one Vikas Kumar, Head Constable, who is stated to be the gunman of Baba Ram Rahim and statements recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C of Anil Kumar and Rajesh Kumar. Learned counsel also submits that as per case of the prosecution, an amount of Rs.1.25 crore was given to the petitioner to manage the affairs after passing an adverse order by the trial Court. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.25.00 lacs was with Aditya Insan, Rs.25.00 lacs with Pawan Insan, Rs.25.00 lacs with Gobhi Ram and Rs.18.00 lacs were with Ram Singh, Chairman for managing and providing facilities to the followers. The petitioner spent a sum of Rs.7.00 lacs for making arrangements of stay of the office bearers of the Dera. An amount of Rs.25.00 lacs was recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that the family members of the petitioner were forced to arrange money while the petitioner was in custody. Some of the amount was lying in the house of the petitioner for the treatment of his father, who was suffering from cancer. Some of the amount was arranged by son of the petitioner from various relatives and also by withdrawing from his account. After arrangement of the amount, the same was handed over to the local police. Said amount has been shown to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that it cannot be said to be the case under Ss. 121 and 121-A of the IPC as the alleged incident cannot be termed as a war against Government of India. The petitioner is in custody since 13/9/2017. Challan has been presented and still it may take time as number of accused are involved. The bail petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed without any sufficient reason. The petitioner was present near the place of occurrence as he went to see his daughter. Learned counsel also submits that father of the petitioner was suffering from cancer and he died in the month of August only. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was not a Member of the Core Committee or 45 Members' Committee.