High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed bail application in murder conspiracy charge involving jail warden's death despite petitioner's contended delay in trial and lack of direct evidence against him.
Bail application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM No.M-11298 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 11298 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 2, 2012.
Ramesh @Mipra.
...... PETITIONER(s)
Versus
State of Haryana.
...... RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. Ram Niwas Kush, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana.
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed for regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no.536 dated 07.09.2009, under sections 302/120B/212 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at police station Civil Lines, Hisar, District Hisar.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar dismissing bail application filed by the petitioner.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-
CRM No.M-11298 of 2011
2
accused that he has been continuing in custody since 10.11.2009 and that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as 16 witnesses are yet to be examined. It is also contended that despite order of this Court dated 17.08.2011 to expedite the trial, the same is not being concluded. It is further contended that there is no evidence against petitioner-accused for committing this crime and that only allegation against him is that he conspired with coaccused to commit murder of jail warden. It is also contended that petitioner could not talk to co-accused, Surender @Sunder in the jail as he was undergoing life imprisonment. It is also contended that so far as recovery of arms and ammunition from possession of the petitioner is concerned, regarding that separate case under Arms Act has been filed against him.
Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instruction from ASI Suresh Kumar, on the plea that petitioner-accused is a hard core criminal and he is a member of gang, who commit murder after taking Supari. It is also contended that earlier as well petitioner alongwith his brother was involved in a murder case. Though he was acquitted in that case and however, his brother was convicted. It is further contended that murder of jail warden of Central Jail, Hisar was committed outside the jail and the same was committed by coaccused in conspiracy with the present petitioner-accused. It is further submitted that it came during investigation that petitioner-accused had talked to co-accused Surender @Sunder on his cell phone for committing murder of jail warden and that details of the call have also been procured during investigation and the statement of petitioner-accused was also recorded in
CRM No.M-11298 of 2011
3
this regard. It is also contended that it was a gruesome murder as nine gun shot injuries were found on the dead body of deceased -jail warden, four empty cartridges cases were recovered near the dead body and three bullets were taken out from the dead body by the doctor. It is further submitted that from the possession of present petitioner-accused four pistols and eight live cartridges were recovered. It is also contended that Surender @Sunder had rang petitioner from jail on his cell phone and asked him to give his cell phone to co-accused, Devender Chawla so that he may talk to Devender Chawla as Devender Chawla was with petitioner-accused and he handed over the cell phone to Devender Chawla and that Surender @Sunder told Devender Chawla that jail warden is to be murdered as he had insulted coaccused, Manoj in the Jail. Thereafter, many telephonic calls of Surender @Sunder came on the mobile phone of present petitioner who used to tell the petitioner to ask Devender Chawla to commit murder of jail warden and the petitioner conveyed the same to Devender Chawla. Even on the night of committing murder of jail warden, a telephonic call was made by Devender Chawla to present petitioner-accused at about 3.00 AM informing that jail warden has been killed. It is further submitted that after committing murder of jail warden, Devender Chawla met the petitioner and handed over to him three country made pistols of .315 bore and one .32 bore alongwith four cartridges of .315 bore and four cartridges of .32 bore. It is further submitted that petitioner also suffered disclosure statement, pursuance to which he got recovered two country made pistols and four cartridges from his house. It is also submitted that he had already got recovered two country made pistols
CRM No.M-11298 of 2011
4
and four cartridges vide his statement dated 07.11.2009. It is also contended that the recovered pistols were used by co-accused, Devender Chawla for committing murder of Gurvinder Singh, Jail Warden. It is further submitted that evidence could not be recorded in this case as two of the accused had run away from the judicial lock up when they were brought to Court on the date of hearing and that they had surrendered on 16.01.2012. It is further submitted that the next date fixed in this case is 18.05.2012. Hence, it is contended that petitioner is also likely to abscond if released on bail.
As is clear from the aforementioned facts, trial could not be expedited as two of the accused had run away from the judicial lock up and they surrendered on 16.01.2012 and hence, trial has now started and the case is fixed for 18.05.2012. Allegations against petitioner-accused are very serious in nature. He also remained involved in another murder case though he was acquitted in that case. There is heavy recovery of country made pistols and cartridges from him.
Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing anything on the merit of the case, I am of the view that it is not such a case in which concession of bail should be granted to the accused. There is no merit in the instant application for bail filed by Ramesh @Mipra. The same is, hereby, dismissed.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE
May 2, 2012. ‘om’
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with murder, conspiracy, and possession of arms given serious allegations and recovery of weapons.
Whether the delay in trial and number of pending witnesses justify bail in a murder case.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ramesh @ Mipra
State of Haryana
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
