NARESH SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner along with six other accused persons is facing trial before the Principal District and Sessions judge, Jammu under Sections 302/109,212, 382 RPC, 3/25 Arms Act. The accused stands charged by the court below vide its order dated 10. 9. 2007. This order has been questioned by the petitioner under Section 561a cr PC in this court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on account of gang rivalry between two groups operating in Jammu one headed by Accused 1, hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the head of their rival gang deceased Sanjay Kumar alias Bakra. The story further reveals that on 25. 11. 2006, accused Rajesh Dogra (A1)and Vishal Singh (A2) shot dead the deceased with their guns in the clinic of Dr. Rattan Kudyar at Trikuta Nagar, Jammu. The killing was preceded by a conspiracy hatched between the accused persons in which roles in executing the killing were assigned to the accused persons. The role assigned to the present petitioner, Naresh singh (A3) is that he gave shelter to the accused persons after they committed the crime at Jammu. The accused persons stayed with the petitioner at Samba and on the morning on 26. 9. 2005, he escorted them up to Lakhanpur for their safe passage outside the State. It has also come on record that one accused person had changed his jacket, which was subsequently recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The gun was also recovered from the cow shed hidden in grass owned by the accused (A3 ). The Investigating Officer in his report under Section 173 has stated that the present petitioner had provided shelter to the accused (A1 and A2) and has also facilitated their escape from the State.

(3.) THE case set out by the petitioner is that he is guilty of only providing shelter and cannot be said to be involved in the said conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. His role starts only after the act was committed and there is no material on the basis of which the accused can be said to be a part of the conspiracy. On the other hand, Mr. Kotwal, learned counsel for the respondents states that it is not the stage to judge, as to whether the accused can be convicted but there is a grave suspicion that the accused is a part of the conspiracy.