DEVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is Crl. Misc. No. 6196-M of 1999 whereby Devinder Singh son of Chhida (petitioner herein) has prayed for the grant of bail to him in case FIR No. 251 dated 10.1 1.1998 registered at PS Tauru under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149, 34 IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 11.11.1998, Jagbir Singh and Sukhdeep alias Sukhi and Raju Dahiya boarded Tata Sumo No. HR-51-C-5771. It was being driven by Sukhi. They stopped at Bhiwadi lights. They were informed that maruti car No. HR-51-C- 2679 belonging to Devan Malik along with Braham Singh, Davinder resident of Jawan, Jaghbir Gujar resident of Budiana and Naresh were bringing liquor from Badwalpur. At about 4.30 PM, the same car was being spotted coming from village Khori. They chased it with their Tata Sumo. Jaghbir Singh and Sukhi were armed with one double barrel gun. After they had crossed village Khori and had gone I kilometer away, they overtook maruti car No. HR-51-C-2679. Jagbir and Naresh came out of the car and started pelting stones towards Jaghbir Singh and Sukhi. After feeling satisfied that there was no liquor in the car, Jaghbir Singh and Sukhi did not come out of Tata Sumo and they took their Tata Sumo towards Tauru at fast speed. Occupants of the Maruti car chased them with their car. After crossing Tauru a little further, the car went ahead of them and they tried to stop Tata Sumo. Sukhi took Tata Sumo to the right turn and went on the road going towards a village road. Car followed them. They reached in village Ghumaya. They parked the Tata Sumo on the side of the road near the village. It was about 5.30 PM. Sukhi took the double barrel gun and stood on the road. Raju Dahiya ran away. Jaghbir Singh also concealed himself in the bushes. Jaghbir Singh saw these five people surrounding Sukhi. Sukhi fired shot which hit one of them. His name was Devan Malik. Devan Malik fell immediately after being hit by the fire shot. In the meantime, Davinder, Braham Singh, Jaghbir and Naresh caught hold of Sukhi and started snatching the gun. At the time of snatching the gun, they pointed the barrel of the gun towards Sukhi and fired which hit Sukhi in stomach near his liver. Sukhi fell down after being hit and breathed his last. All these four persons threw the gun and put Devan Malik in the car and ran away.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Devinder Singh alias Devan Malik submitted that there is a cross complaint filed by accused Devan Malik against the complainant party under Section 307/34 IPC. It was submitted that it was complainant party which way laid the car of the petitioner and his other co- accused who were returning to their residence after doing their duty at the place of their work. It was further submitted that as per the FIR, no illicit liquor was recovered from the car of the accused party on search and it was thereafter that deceased Sukhi who was armed with double barrel gun fired at the petitioner and his other co-accused and fire shot hit Devan Malik alias Devinder Singh who fell down. Devan Malik alias Davinder Singh was co- occupant of the car with the petitioner accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the first shot, it was natural for the petitioner and his other co-accused to disarm Sukhi deceased of his gun so that there was no firing on the petitioner and his other co-accused. It was further submitted that there was nothing in the FIR that guns was taken by the petitioner or his other co-accused from Sukhi deceased. It was submitted that the inference should be that Sukhi was hit by his own gun due to accidental shot. It was submitted that it is a clear case where Sukhi deceased suffered gun shot injury when lie was firing at the petitioner again after having fired on Devan Malik earlier. It was submitted that it is yet to be determined at the trial as to which version is correct. Chasing or the petitioner accused and his other co-accused by the complainant party in their Tata Sumo with their double barrel gun is admitted by the complainant.