High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
KARAMBIR v. STATE OF HARYANA - CRM-13501-M-2005  RD-P&H 12 (12 May 2005)
Karambir v. State of Haryana
(2) Crl. Misc. No.14952-M of 2005
Jagdish & Others v. State of Haryana
(3) Crl. Misc. No.49456-M of 2005
Pardeep v. State of Haryana
Present:- Shri H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate with Shri Vivek Goel, Advocate for the petitioners in Crl. Misc. No.13501-M & 14952-M of 2005 Shri Yash Pal, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Misc. No.49456-M of 2005
Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Shri G.S. Gill, Advocate for the complainant.
Surya Kant,J. (Oral):
This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. Nos.13501-M, 14952-M and 49456-M of 2005 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from Crl.
Misc.No.13501-M of 2005.
Crl. Misc. No.13501-M of 2005 - 2 -
The prayer in this petition is to release the petitioners on regular bail in FIR No.138 dated 31.10.2004, under Sections 302, 364, 201, 34 IPC and 3/33/89 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Dhand, District Kaithal.
The FIR was got registered by the Chwokidar of village Dadwan who reported that on 31.10.2004 at about 6 AM for going to village Dhand on bicycle, at about 6.15 AM he saw the dead body of a person lying on the pucca road when he neared the panchayat land at about 100 yards ahead of bus-stop of the village. As per the Chowkidar's statement, he got down the bi-cycle, went near the dead body and saw that "there were tyre marks of a vehicle on the chest of that unknown person", and further, "there was an injury mark on the left side of his head above ear due to the fall and blood had oozed out of it".
Since the dead body could not be identified and remained unclaimed, the police, after getting the post-mortem conducted, cremated it.
November, 2004, an affidavit (Annexure P-8) was given by Gita Rani wife of Dr. Paul Singh wherein she deposed that on 3rd November, 2004 (wrongly mentioned as 3rd October, 2005), she came to
know through newspaper "Dainik Jagran" that there was an unclaimed Crl. Misc. No.13501-M of 2005 - 3 -
dead body lying in the Police Station Dhand and thereupon her mother, namely, Smt. Jarnailo went to the said police station and came to know that the dead body which was found near the panchayat land of village Dadwan by Jeet Ram, Chowkidar, was that of Dr. Paul Singh as identified from the photographs and clothes of Dr. Paul Singh husband of the deponent.
Thereafter, said Gita Rani also went to the police station on 4th November,
2004 and she too identified the photographs and the clothes of her deceased husband Dr. Paul Singh. In her aforementioned affidavit, Gita Rani is alleged to have stated that her sister Sunita Rani was married to one Raj Kumar about two years ago. However, said Raj Kumar was already having a wife and three children which fact was not disclosed by him at the time of solemnization of marriage with the sister of the deponent and on account of this, differences were going on between said Raj Kumar and Sunita Rani - sister of the deponent filed a complaint against the former under section 420, 376 IPC and Dr. paul Singh used to pursue the said complaint by supporting Sunita Rani, therefore, Raj Kumar and one "another person" were suspected to have committed the murder of Dr. Paul Singh near village Dadwan.
It appears that, keeping in view the aforementioned affidavit of Gita Rani, Raj Kumar husband of her sister Sunita Rani was arrested and is also one of the accused facing trial. He is, however, not the applicant Crl. Misc. No.13501-M of 2005 - 4 -
seeking bail in these petitions.
The matter did not end here. It is alleged that on 14th November, 2004, a statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was made by Subhash s/o Prem Dass, namely, nephew of the deceased Dr. Paul Singh.
Said Subhash is alleged to have stated that on 30th October, 2004 he had
gone to the house of his Chacha (uncle), namely, Dr. Paul Singh and in his presence Raj Kumar along with 4-5 persons came and that though Raj Kumar was already known to him, but his associates were introduced at the residence of his Chacha and thereafter, Dr. Paul Singh left in the company of Raj Kumar and his 4-5 associates in his presence.
According to the prosecution, and rightly so, it is a clueless murder and in its quest to trace out the real culprits, link evidence including statement of Subhash recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. has been collected, which clearly establishes that the deceased was lastly seen in the company of Raj Kumar and his 4-5 associates. At this stage, It may be mentioned that those associates of Raj Kumar with whom Subhash was allegedly introduced at the residence of Dr. Paul Singh are the petitioners herein. While Jagdish, Ramphal and Pardeep were arrested on 15th November, 2004, Karamvir was arrested on 24th November, 2004.
In support of the prayer made in this petition, Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contend that:- (i) the occurrence had Crl. Misc. No.13501-M of 2005 - 5 -
allegedly taken place in the night intervening 30-31 October, 2004 and despite the complainant already having come to know that the dead body recovered from near the panchayat land of village Dadwan on 3rd November, 2004 was that of Dr. Paul Singh, there is no explanation as to why Subhash nephew of deceased Dr. Paul Singh made the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. at such a belated stage, i.e., on 14th November,
2004; (ii) if the affidavit dated 6.11.2004 of the wife of the deceased is to be believed, it was Raj Kumar main accused only who had an axe to grind against deceased Dr. Paul Singh and no motive, whatsoever, has been attributed to the petitioners; (iii) the investigation is complete, challan has already been presented, the material collected by the prosecution miserably fails to connect the petitioners with the alleged occurrence as there is absolutely no link evidence; (iv) the reliance placed by the prosecution on the so-called disclosure statement made by the petitioners is of no legal consequence inasmuch as the alleged disclosure pertains to the place where dead body of Dr. Paul Singh was allegedly lying; it is not a discovery of any new fact on the strength of which the petitioners can be implicated; (v) the petitioners are in custody from last more than 10-11 months; (vi) since the prosecution intends to examine as many as 24 witnesses and none has been examined so far, conclusion of trial will take considerably long period; (vii) the material on record does indicate that it Crl. Misc. No.13501-M of 2005 - 6 -
was a case of fatal road accident and the subsequent story concocted by the prosecution and/or the complainant party has no factual basis.
Learned State Counsel as well as Learned Counsel for the complainant, however, have opposed the prayer made in these petitions and contend that having regard to the gravity of offence, no case for bail is made out.
After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties andhaving regard to the nature of allegations and evidence collected against the petitioners as well as all other attending circumstances, including the fact that the petitioners are in custody from last 10-11 months, and conclusion of trial will take a considerably long period, but at the same time without expressing any views on the merits of the case lest it should prejudice any one of them, these petitions are allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal.
October 28, 2005 [ Surya Kant ]
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.