The Punjab and Haryana HC was dealing with the petition filed for seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered against him at Police Station Sadar Rohtak, under Section 302 IPC (Sections 120-B & 34 IPC added later on).
Brief Facts:
The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Joginder, wherein it was alleged that his father, used to sleep in a plot where their buffaloes were tethered. On the day of occurrence, when he went to serve tea to his father, his father was found dead and the dead body, which was lying on a cot, was found to be smeared with blood. It was further stated that there were injury marks on neck, which apparently had been caused with a jaily and there were also injury marks of darati on the legs and that the said jaily and darati were also found lying there smeared with blood. The complainant alleged that some unknown persons had killed his father during night.
The complainant’s brother alleged that on the night, when he was proceeding to his house after attending to his personal work, he saw Shankar along with one more boy going from the street adjoining his house and later he came to know about the name of the boy as Ashish. He stated that he and other members of his family had made enquiries and found that since his father’s name figured in one murder case about 37 years back, it was on account of the said grudge, Shankar and Ashish along with their companions and other members of the family had murdered his father.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case of blind murder, wherein the petitioner was nowhere named in the FIR and came to be nominated on the basis of statement of complainant’s brother recorded one day after lodging of FIR. It has been submitted that the
motive, as attributed in the statement of complainant’s brother, does not appeal to reason inasmuch as the involvement of the deceased in some murder case is stated to have taken place about 37 years back and at that time Shankar had not even been born.
Respondent’s Contention:
The learned State counsel submitted that the name of the petitioner specifically figures in the statement of the complainant’s brother recorded on the very next day of lodging of FIR and that the petitioner stands involved in 5 other cases registered under the Arms Act and in these circumstances, he does not deserve the concession of bail.
HC’s observations and Held:
HC after various submissions made by both the parties stated that “It is not in dispute that it is a case of blind murder, wherein none had witnessed the alleged murder. The prosecution mainly relies on circumstantial evidence, which is mainly in the nature of ‘last seen’ evidence, as would be evident from the statement of Amir Singh. The said ‘last seen’ evidence in the absence of any other corroborative evidence may not be sufficient to connect the petitioner with the alleged murder. Although the petitioner is stated to be involved in 5 other cases under the Arms Act pertaining to the fire arms, but in the instant case no fire arm is stated to be used. In any case, the petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of more than 1 year and conclusion of trial will take some time, In these circumstances, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose.”
HC allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioner.
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill
Case Title: Ashish @ Khatri v. State of Haryana
Case Details: CRM-M-31521-2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
