Dayawati vs State of Haryana

Instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of regular bail to the petitioner pending trial in case FIR No.110 dated

18.09.2017, under Sections 148/149/302/307/323/452/506 IPC and 25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Kheri Pul, District Faridabad.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

Briefly noticed, FIR was registered on the statement of Lalit Kumar in relation to an occurrence that took place in the late evening hours of

17.09.2017. In such occurrence, 05 persons lost their lives on account of firearm injuries including father of the complainant and 06 others suffered

injuries including the complainant himself.

As per version of complainant Lalit Kumar, he is a resident of Village Palwali, Police Station Kheri Pul, District Faridabad and an Advocate by

profession. At about 9/9:15 p.m. on 17.09.2017 he heard some noise of a fight having broken out and abuses being exchanged and, accordingly,

complainant along with his father Rajender Parshad and brother Nitesh came out of the house. Complainant has specifically named 26 accused along

with 10-12 other persons to be standing in the street in front of his house and all of them having guns, revolver, farsas, katta, dandas, lathis and iron

rods. Further asserted that at that stage other members of his family as also from the neighbourhood gathered at the spot. The accused persons

specifically named are stated to have launched an attack with the weapons that they possessed. In such incident, Rajender Parshad father of the

complainant, Ishwar Chand, Shri Chand, Naveen and Devender @ Pintu died on account of firearm injuries. 06 others also suffered injuries. Motive

attributed by the complainant is that Dayawati w/o Billu @ Virender (present petitioner) is presently Sarpanch of Village Palwali and during the

election process the complainant party had not helped Virender @ Billu on account of which a grudge was being nursed and to settle scores all the

accused mentioned in the FIR being armed had collectively launched an attack.

It may be noticed that petitioner herein was not named in the FIR.

Petitioner is sought to be implicated on the strength of a statement recorded of Het Ram Chauhan under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 28.09.2017. Such

statement has been placed on record and appended as Annexure P-5 in CRM No.M-21591 of 2018 i.e. a connected petition filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C. seeking concession of regular bail for co-accused Omwati. Statement has been perused.

As per statement of Het Ram Chauhan, at around 9/9:30 p.m. on 17.09.2017 upon having noticed a clamor on the street he had come out of the house

and saw a crowd gathered outside the house of Lalit Kumar (complainant) and a brawl taking place. As per statement, Dayawati wife of Virender @

Billu (present petitioner) and Omwati wife of Nand Kishore came from the side of the house carrying a rifle and revolver respectively and Dayawati

is stated to have handed over the rifle to co-accused Kamal Kishore @ Lilu.

As per prosecution version, present petitioner was a part of the unlawful assembly and had played an active role in the crime having been perpetrated

inasmuch as a firearm had been handed over by her to co-accused Kamal Kishore @ Lilu.

Since there was stated to be a CCTV footage also pertaining to the occurrence, it would be apposite to refer to the reply filed by way of an affidavit

dated 02.07.2018 of Atma Ram, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Faridabad and placed on record in the connected petition i.e. CRM

No.M-21591 of 2018.

As per affidavit, there was no CCTV installed at the place where the offence was committed. However, there was a CCTV camera installed on an

electric pole in front of the house of accused Virender @ Billu and which had captured the movement of certain persons going towards the place of

occurrence.

In the affidavit dated 02.07.2018 filed on behalf of the State, it has been clearly deposed that the CCTV footage only shows the petitioner and another

lady going towards the place of occurrence but empty handed. As per affidavit, role of the present petitioner in the commission of crime has not been

captured in the CCTV footage.

Prima facie the statement of Het Ram Chauhan recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is at variance to the contents of the affidavit dated 02.07.2018

filed on behalf of the State. That apart even in such statement recorded of Het Ram Chauhan, he had not witnessed the actual occurrence. He stated

that upon apprehending a fight, he went back inside the house and bolted the door and later on came to know that 05 persons had died on account of

bullet injuries and 06 others had suffered injuries.

Petitioner was arrested on 19.09.2017.

Complainant has specifically named 26 other co-accused and has even assigned specific roles to some of them. The motive attributed by the

complainant is that Dayawati i.e. the present petitioner is the present Sarpanch of Village Palwali and during the election process, the complainant

party had not helped her husband Virender @ Billu and on account of which a grudge was being nursed.

Complainant as also the present petitioner are residents of the same Village Palwali, rather petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of the Village. It can

safely be presumed that the complainant was aware of her identity. He has, however, chosen not to identify and name the present petitioner to be a

member of the unlawful assembly who had launched the attack. Petitioner as such was not even named in the FIR.

Involvement and implication of the petitioner on the strength of statement of Het Ram Chauhan under Section 161 Cr.P.C. would be debatable.

Even the CCTV footage which otherwise does not cover the occurrence, at best shows movement of the present petitioner but empty handed.

In view of the discussion hereinabove coupled with the length of incarceration already suffered and also keeping in mind that the petitioner is a lady,

the prayer made in the present petition is accepted.

Petitioner be enlarged on regular bail subject to satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

It is, however, made clear that the observations made in this order are confined only with regard to considering and examining the prayer for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner and would have no bearing on the merits of the case.

Disposed of.