Petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a case involving offences under sections 307, 34 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act. They alleged false implication and provided an alibi. The court found the offence serious and dismissed the petition, denying bail.
Petition dismissed; pre-arrest bail denied.
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.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 30299 of 2012
----1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 30299 of 2012(O&M) Date of decision. 27.09.2012
Krishan Kumar and another
....... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Haryana
........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:Mr. Sanjay Vashisth,Advocate for the petitioners.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Crl. Misc. No.58092 of 2012
Miscellaneous application is allowed. Documents Annexures P-3, P-5, P-7, P-9, P-10, P-14 and P-15 are taken on record and the petitioners are granted exemption from filing certified copies thereof. Crl. Misc. No.M-30299 of 2012
Krishan Kumar and Pawan Kumar,the petitioners seek prearrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 267 dated 09.07.2012 at Police Station Sadar Palwal, District Palwal, for an offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 30299 of 2012
----2--
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Deva, a brother of the petitioners has been murdered. According to him, Ravi Dutt is one of the persons taken in custody in connection with the said murder. According to him, this false case has been got registered against the petitioners with the only motive to pressurize them to enter into a compromise with the murderers of Deva and to stop pursuing the said case. According to him, Krishan Kumar has been recently appointed as Junior Engineer and his name is involved just to exert heavy pressure on their side.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that after learning about their false implication, an application was made by petitioner no.2 to Superintendent of Police, Palwal. According to him, he had brought to the notice of the police several circumstances to show that this is a case of false implication. According to him, the petitioners had gone to Kurukshetra to see Dr. Ram Parkash, a Member of Parliament on the date of the alleged occurrence and they had taken meals at Pehlwan Dhabha Murthal, a restaurant of Sonepat. According to him, they had given the CCTV footage of that Dhabha to the police and had given a certificate issued by Dr. Ram Parkash about their visiting him on 08.07.2012. He has further submitted that even the call records of the phones of the petitioners show that they could not be anywhere near the site of occurrence at the time of alleged crime.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the complainant who claims to have suffered a gun shot injury at the hands
Crl. Misc. No. M- 30299 of 2012 ----3--
of the petitioners is not even an accused in the case of murder of Deva and there was no reason for the petitioners to have fired at him. He has further submitted that the gun shot had even hit him at the back of his leg and the said fact would also take out the case from the purview of section 307 IPC.
While there is possibility that the petitioners are falsely accused with a view to gain benefit in the murder trial, there is also a possibility of the petitioners attacking the persons, who have been associating themselves with the murderers of their brother. The actual culprits of the murder case are in custody and at the moment, the anger could be given vent to against the sympathisers/helpers of those persons.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has not denied the possibility of a person reaching Pehlwan Dhabha at some time past 6.00 PM after committing this crime at about 3.00 PM in the area of Palwal. When a gun shot is fired, it cannot be said that the same was fired aiming at the leg. Sometimes due to mistake of aim the part targeted is not hit and for this reason, it cannot be said that it is not a case under section 307 IPC. Further more, it will be pre-mature to comment on these aspects. So looking to the seriousness of the matter, I do not find the petitioners to be entitled to pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
September 27, 2012 dinesh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail in a case involving murder and unlawful possession of arms.
Whether the defence alibi and potential false implication justify granting bail notwithstanding the gravity of the offence.
Krishan Kumar and another
The State of Haryana
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
