D.C. alias Deputy Ram vs State of Haryana

Rajan Gupta, J.—This is a petition for anticipatory bail filed by one D.C. alias Deputy Ram, who has been summoned by the court to face trial u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the investigating agency had found the petitioner innocent during the investigation and thus, charge-sheet was submitted only against Lucky alias Amit Kumar. According to the Counsel, no evidence is available against the petitioner and thus he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record annexed with the petition.

It is evident that in the very first version, the complainant had ascribed clear cut role to the petitioner. The complainant had stated that on the fateful day when the complainant was accompanying his brother, they were accosted by D.C. alias Deputy Ram (the petitioner herein), and one Lucky alias Amit Kumar near the taxi stand. The petitioner told Lucky to run the canter over brother of the complainant. Lucky obeyed and drove the canter over brother of the complainant and crushed him under its tyres. It is thus obvious that the complainant, who is also an eye-witness to the crime named the petitioner in the initial version as well, which led to the registration of the FIR. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show how the police arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner was innocent. He has only referred to the final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-1), wherein it is mentioned that the Investigating Officer found D.C. alias Deputy Ram innocent in respect of the offence alleged. However, the said report does not contain any reason on the basis of which D.C. alias Deputy Ram i.e. the petitioner was found innocent.

The allegations against the petitioner being serious in nature and offence being u/s 302 IPC, I do not find it a fit case for grant of concession of anticipatory bail.

The petition is thus dismissed.