Aas Mohd v. State Of Haryana
CRM-M nos.30048 and 20782 of 2021 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 107/2 CRM-M-30048 of 2021 Date of Decision:20.09.2021 Aas Mohd.
...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ......... Respondent CRM-M-20782 of 2021 Abdulla ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ......... Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH
!
"
#
$
!
%& &
&%
" ' "
&% $
( "
) % * # + ***** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)
On July 30, 2021 the following order had been passed by this court:-
CRM-M nos.30048 and 20782 of 2021 -2- , -
'+ .
+ / %
01
3 - / -
% ! !
(
%%-- &&
/%
!
34 4 $
1
!
&
5 %
01 %
/& - &
) %- %-
%- )
&%+ &&/ - /
/+ / %%
'
%
(
&
( "
) % % * # +
.-
6 % ! % - &
8 - "
% %
9 /+
) :9 %%%+; -
) )
-
9 )
%%+
&
. * % %
-
&% /&
)%%+
-
% % %
& # - & )
/ $ +
- ) -
9 ) ) & .-
+ &&
-
% &
" - ) ).
& "-
CRM-M nos.30048 and 20782 of 2021 -3-
-
%% % / %
-
<
/ %
+ /
-
41% < -
# %%
&%+ )
%% % !
: ;
- -
%%+ " - ) %
% 1% < - && %+ ) ) % &&
-
& " & - &
- 8
%
% %+ -
/ %+ -
) " - & )%
" 3 = Thereafter, on a reply filed to the petition by the DSP, Tauru, District Nuh, dated 09.09.2021, learned State counsel had submitted that supplementary statements were made by Farzana, Washim and Dinu, by which all three of them had implicated the petitioner as also Abdulla to be the persons who had actually fired upon them, with the said statements annexed as Annexures R-1 to R-3 with the reply of the DSP.
He further submits that many gun shot injuries having been received by those who got injured in the occurrence, the country made pistol that was stated to have been used in the occurrence, is still to be recovered, with the petitioner not getting it recovered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, points to the vernacular version of the disclosure statement allegedly made by the petitioner (in police custody, copy
CRM-M nos.30048 and 20782 of 2021 -4Annexure R-9), to submit that only a single pistol was said to have been used in the occurrence even as per the said disclosure statement allegedly made by the petitioner (though otherwise denied), and that (as per the statement) he had actually returned the pistol to Abdulla (petitioner in CRM-M-20782 of 2021), and consequently, with the pistol not having been recovered from Abdulla, there is no question of the pistol being recovered at the instance of the petitioner (Aas Mohd.). Having considered the matter, just because Abdulla had been arrested and has now filed a petition under the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., that would not entitle the petitioner to continue to remain on interim bail in my opinion, this petition being one filed under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
That being so, with fire arm injuries allegedly found to have been received by those on the side of the complainant, I would see no ground to entertain this petition, which is consequently dismissed, with the interim order dated 30.07.2021 vacated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has now again pointed to the original statements made by Farzana, Washim and Dinu, to the effect that the petitioner was not even present at the spot.
Even having considered that contention again, for the reasons already stated hereinabove, looking at the supplementary statements as have been annexed with the reply of the DSP, I see no reason to continue with this petition. Obviously, if the petitioner is arrested and he files a petition under the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., that would be considered wholly on its
CRM-M nos.30048 and 20782 of 2021 -5own merits. Further, all observations made in the context of this petition by this court in any order passed, would not be considered by the trial court at the time when the matter goes to the trial, naturally all such observations having been made only in the context of a petition filed under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
CRM-M-20782 of 2021 Adjourned to 26.10.2021.
The trial court is directed to examine the material/injured witnesses at the outset.
+
%
%
&
September 20, 2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) dinesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No