Angrej Singh vs State of Haryana

Sat Pal, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the Code), seeking bail pending trial in the case FIR No. 90 dated 13th March, 1995 registered at Police Station, Sohana under Sections 302/120B/34, IPC.

As per the allegations made by the prosecution, the petitioner and one Ashok Kumar came and asked for food from the deceased without making any payment. The deceased refused to give them food as according to him, food has already been supplied to six of their colleagues but no payment had been made to him. It has further been alleged that the petitioner and Ashok Kumar felt offended and they went back and after a while they alongwith one Suresh Kumar who was armed with a pistol came to the Dhaba of the deceased. It is further alleged that after the deceased refused to supply food without charges, the petitioner and Ashok Kumar called upon Suresh to fire at Chander Parkash (deceased) on which Suresh fired at Chander Parkash who succumbed to the injuries.

Mr. Chahal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that all the co accused except Suresh Kumar who is alleged to have fired on the deceased, have already been released on bail. He further submits that coaccused Ashok Kumar has been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide order, dated 11th August, 1995. A copy of the order, dated 11th August, 1995, passed by Shri A.K. Goel, learned Additional Sessions Jude is also on record.

Mr. Dewan, learned AAG, however, submits that accused Suresh had fied at the deceased only after lalkara was given by the petitioner, and as such the petitioner is equally responsible for the murder in terms of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. As per the allegations, the petitioner and Ashok Kumar felt offended when the deceased refused to supply food to them without charges and both of them called upon Suresh to fire upon the deceased and thereafter accused Suresh fired at the deceased. From these facts it is clear that the petitioner was well aware of the fact that Suresh was having a pistol in his hand and it was on his call that the accused Suresh fired at the deceased. In view of these facts, the petitioner is not entitled to bail at all. The view I have taken finds full support from a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sushil v. State of UP, JT 1994(7) SC 341.

It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge who granted bail to coaccused Ashok Kumar on 11th August, 1995, was not aware of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the recent judgments including the judgment referred to herein above. The prosecution also failed to bring to the notice of the learned additional Sessions Judge the order dated 17th June, 1995 passed by Shri M.S. Nagra, learned Sessions, Judge, Gurgaon rejecting the bail application of Angrej Singh (petitioner). It was in these circumstances that the bail appears to have been granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to Ashok Kumar.

For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed.