Prithvi Singh vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.

An angry crowd consisting of about 2530 persons went to the Power House and attacked the officials therein since they did not get electric supply. It is alleged that the complainantMahabir Singh also sustained injuries. While Parhlad, who was injured in the occurrence, died subsequently, Harbans Lal and Reghbir were also subjected to attack.

The petitioner moved the Sessions Court, Karnal for bail, but his application was dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for bail.

On 13.8.1999 notice of this application was ordered to be issued to A.G. Haryana for 10.9.1999. Note by the Registry indicated that the service was complete. When the case was taken up on 13.9.99, there was no one to represent the State of Haryana, and therefore, the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner were heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not named in the FIR, and that he had not caused any injury also. He further contends that these offences are stated to have been committed by an angry mob of village Seikhupura, while the petitioner belongs to Rajiv Colony, Gharunda. He further contends that no test identification parade was also conducted, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

The order of the learned Sessions Judge shows that on 5.7.1999 itself i.e. the date of F.I.R. Sube Singh, a Lineman had given a statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner had assaulted him with a Danda on the right side of his forehead, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

The petitioner is not stated to have attacked the deceased. He is stated to have caused injury to one Sube Singh. It has not been shown that Sube Singh had sustained any injury which is dangerous to life. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the petitioner has not even been identified in an identification parade inasmuch as 2530 persons had attacked the officials. He also contends that the petitioner had no concern in this matter inasmuch as the angry mob belongs to village Seikhupura while he (petitioner) belongs to Rajiv Colony, Gharaunda.

In these circumstances, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

Resultantly, this petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Karnal.