RAVINDER SINGH ALIAS PHALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) F .I.R. No. 44 dated 1.6.1999 has been registered at Police Station Mohana, under Sections 395/397 I.P.C. on the statement of Ram Kumar, containing the following, among other, allegations :-

(2.) THE complainant is having a taxi (Maruti Van) and used to park it at the Taxi Stand. On 31.5.1999, at about 2.30 P.M. three persons came and arranged with him for taking his taxi and the hire charges were settled. Two of them sat in the van, and when the van reached Khubru road, they got the van stopped. Two young boys aged about 24/25 years were standing there and they were also taken in the van. Thereafter they proceeded in the van. On reaching the Bus Adda of village Khubru, they told that they had to take one boy. The complainant stopped the van, one of the boys got down and brought one young boy from Khubru Adda. The complainant took all of them in his van and when he reached in between villages Pugthala and Tewdi, one of the boys by name Krishan asked him to stop the vehicle and said that Suresh of Khubruwala would drive it. The complainant got down from the van and sat with them on the back side while Suresh started driving the van. When they reached near villages Tewri and Bajana, Suresh stopped the vehicle and all the five boys took liquor. At 5.30 P.M. they once again started and Suresh was driving the vehicle. At about 8 P.M., when the vehicle entered village Laath Krishan, stated that Bhala and Birbal sons of Chander Singh had also to be taken. They stopped the vehicle in front of the house of Birbal and Birbal was called from the house and made to sit in the van. Then they proceeded and when the van came out of the village, Krishan had showed the pistol against the ear of the complainant, the vehicle was stopped, the complainant was pushed down and they fled away with the Maruti van.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for both sides and perused the records on file. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Narinder, Birbal and Kuldip, co-accused have also been granted bail by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge himself, whereas the petitioner whose case is identical with their case, has been declined the relief. But the learned counsel for the State on the other hand contends that in the F.I.R. itself the name of the petitioner has been mentioned. He referred to that portion of the FIR where Krishan one of the co-accused is alleged to have stated that Bhalla and Birbal residents of Laath have also to be taken. He also points out that in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the petitioner, the van in question was also recovered. Pointing out these aspects, learned counsel for the State contends that the case of the petitioner is not identical with that of Narinder, Birbal and Kuldip and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.