AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.
CRM NO. 20779 OF 2014
Application is allowed, as prayed for.
Supplementary statement of complainant-Sunil Kumar is taken on record as Annexure P-5.
Application disposed of.
CRM-M-20795 OF 2014
This order shall dispose of the present petition filed u/s 439 Cr.P.C. seeking the benefit of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 222 dated 18.03.2012 under Sections 302, 120B, 506, 148, 149 of IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Hisar, District Hisar.
FIR in question was registered on the statement of Sunil Kumar, brother of deceased Anil Kumar. Occurrence is stated to be of 17.3.2012. In the initial statement of Sunil Kumar recorded on 18.3.2012, he had nominated Meenu Sharma, Sukhbir, Kala and an unknown person driving motor cycle to be involved in the murder of his brother, who had died on account of pistol shot injuries.
It so transpires that the complainant Sunil Kumar, thereafter got a supplementary statement recorded after a gap of one year i.e. on 10.3.2013 on the basis of which the present petitioner has been implicated. Even a perusal of such supplementary statement placed on record at Annexure P-5 of complainant Sunil Kumar mentions the name of the present petitioner as driver of Scorpio Car. Even in such supplementary statement the complainant-Sunil Kumar has nominated Thandu a person who had fired shots on deceased-Anil. No specific role/injury has been attributed to the present petitioner even in such supplementary statement.
Under such circumstances, false implication of the present petitioner cannot be ruled out. The supplementary statement was not got recorded immediately after the alleged occurrence but after a gap of almost one year.
The petitioner has been in custody since 25.03.2013. Even the trial of the case is at the initial stage inasmuch as learned State counsel would apprise the Court that out of 36 prosecution witnesses cited, only two have been examined till date.
As such without making any observation on the merits of the case and keeping in view the length of incarceration already suffered by the petitioner as also the factual matrix as noticed here-in-above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of regular bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Disposed of.