Parveen v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 25.05.2018 Parveen

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Arshdeep Bhullar, Advocate for the complainant.

******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.516 dated 03.10.2015 registered for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 212, 120-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Ganaur, District Sonipat. 2.

As per allegations in the FIR, which was recorded on statement of Joginder son of Om Parkash, his elder brother, namely, Sajjan Pal was a candidate for election of sarpanch and the opposing candidate was sarpanch Surinder Singh. Both the families have long standing enmity. 3.

On 03.10.2015, complainant alongwith Sajjan Pal, Sandeep, Rakesh, Birender, Ram Kumar, Rameshwar and Balbir all residents of village Panchi Jatan were returning to their houses after campaigning for Sajjan Pal. At about 10.30 p.m., when they reached in front of house of

-2Ramphal, Sushil @ Sheela, Sunil @ Ullu and Naresh @ Bandri were sitting in bullock-cart on which Surinder Singh alongwith his sons Deepak and Parveen was standing. Surinder Singh exhorted to kill Sajjan Pal at which all the persons fired with their weapons. Sajjan Pal suffered 5-6 bullet injuries and Ram Kumar son of Meer Singh had also suffered bullet injury on the nose. Sajjan Pal fell on the ground and accused ran away from the spot alongwith their weapons. Sajjan Pal was taken to hospital but he died on the way because of gun shot injuries.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that earlier a case was got registered against complainant party vide FIR No. 393 dated 26.10.2013, registered at Police Station Ganaur. Present case is offshoot of that FIR. No specific role has been attributed to the petitioner, who has been implicated because of political rivalry. The petitioner was declared proclaimed offender in this case and an FIR was registered against him on this score in which he has already been acquitted. The police has presented the challan and conclusion of trial will take considerably long time, no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. 5.

FIR in this case pertains to the year 2015 and the petitioner was arrested by Crime Branch of New Delhi in some other case on 06.09.2017 and thereafter he was taken into custody in this case. 6.

Learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner has been named in the FIR. He is one of the main accused. After the incident he had fled away and was declared proclaimed offender. After investigation, police has presented challan. Other accused are yet to be arrested. Release of petitioner at this stage will give him opportunity to prevail upon the witnesses and tamper with prosecution evidence.

-37.

Learned counsel for complainant has argued that the petitioner and other accused in this case are resourceful persons having great influence on police which is colluding with them. Complainant had to come to this Court to seek further investigation. Accused Sushil @ Sheela has not been arrested so far and the police has yet to arrest other accused as well. The petitioner was not deliberately arrested by the police. He was declared proclaimed offender. He was holding rallies in the village being a leader of youth wing of a political party and police never dared to arrest him even after he was declared proclaimed offender. It was only on his arrest in a case by the Delhi Police that he was taken into custody in this case. Statement of complainant and eye-witnesses have not been recorded in this case so far, as such, petitioner should not be allowed bail at this stage. 8.

As per allegations in the FIR, petitioner and his associates had fired at Sajjan Pal who suffered six bullet injuries and died. It was a case of political rivalry. After the incident the petitioner had absconded and evaded his arrest for a period of about two years. The challan has now been presented and grant of bail to petitioner at this stage will allow him opportunity to prevail upon witnesses and tamper with prosecution evidence.

9.

Keeping in view the gravity of offence, I find no reason to extend benefit of bail to petitioner at this stage. This petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.

May 25, 2018 ( SURINDER GUPTA ) jk JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No