Petitioner challenged summons issued under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to stand trial as an additional accused in a murder case and sought pre-arrest bail. Bench held summons was based on sufficient statements excluding other accused and dismissed revisions, denying bail.
Petitioner's petitions for revision against summons and for pre-arrest bail were 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.
Crl. Revision No. 711 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 711 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 23rd , 2012
Jaikam alias Jacum
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.... Respondent
2. Criminal Misc. No. M-8162 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 23rd , 2012
Jaikam alias Jacum .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate, for the petitioner.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Jaikam alias Jacum, the petitioner has been summoned to stand trial under the provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C. by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, vide orders dated 8.2.2012 for an offence punishable under sections 302, 392 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code in a case registered by way of FIR No. 592 dated 1.12.2010 at Police Station Nuh.
Crl. Revision No. 711 of 2012
2
Khalil Ahmed son of complainant Chajju was found lying dead on the bank of a river near village Kilenjer. Suspecting Jaikam alias Jacum, Rati, Sappa, Wahid, Hanif, Islam and Lala alias Nijjar Mohd to have murdered him, the complainant lodged the FIR. During investigation, all these persons were found innocent and challan was presented against four persons, namely, Sakrulla, Ajmeen, Jahul and Sahun.
After recording statement of Mehboob son of Chajju as PW-2 and Chajju son of Juhur Khan as PW-3, the prosecution made an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh vide orders dated 8.2.2012 partly allowed the application ordering the summoning of Jaikam alias Jacum to stand trial as an additional accused while dismissing the application qua Ratti, Sappa, Wahid, Hanif, Islam and Lala alias.
By filing Criminal Revision No. 711 of 2012, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order and by filing Criminal Misc. No.M-8162 of 2012, under the provisions of section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in aforesaid case.
I have heard Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though, the complainant suspected the petitioner and others for having been involved in the murder of his son Khalil Ahmed, yet the investigation revealed that Ajmeen alias Mubin alongwith Sappa and Jahul were planning to rob some passers-by and putting their plan into action, they stopped Khalil Ahmed. According to him, although they had their faces
Crl. Revision No. 711 of 2012
3
covered, yet suspecting that the victim had recognized them, they killed him. He has submitted that the mobile phone of the deceased was put on surveillance and on account of the same, Ajmeen was traced and these facts came to the notice of the investigating agency. Therefore, the petitioner and others were found innocent and challan was presented against those persons. He has referred me in this regard to the statements of two witnesses on the basis of which summoning order has been issued. He has taken me through the FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is also entitled to pre-arrest bail.
The law on the aspect of power of the court under section 319
Cr.P.C. as laid down in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, 1983 (1) RCR (Criminal) 73 that the same under this provision is really an extra ordinary power conferred upon the court and should be exercised very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other persons against whom action has not been taken, is not favoured by Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in later decision in Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1022. It has been held in Rajendra Singh's case (supra) that the scope of the power under section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be narrowed down to this extent. It has been laid down that the court is not required to be satisfied from the evidence led by the prosecution that the accused has committed an offence but it should only appear to the court that he has committed the offence.
The investigating agency while submitting challan against
Crl. Revision No. 711 of 2012
4
Ajmeen alias Mubin and others was satisfied about their involvement as also non involvement of any other person in the murder of Khalil Ahmed on the strength of disclosure statement of Ajmeen. No other evidence appears to be there with the prosecution to say that it is Ajmeen alias Mubin and his companions, namely, Sakrulla, Sahun and Jahul who had murdered Khalil Ahmed and that the petitioner Jaikam alias Jacum has no role in it. The investigating agency has ignored some circumstances which have come in the FIR and are supported by Mehboob and Chajju at the trial. Those circumstances are that the petitioner settled a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- to be paid by Khalil Ahmed to him for arranging a job for him and had received a sum of Rs.60,000/- from him. As the deceased got job as Yojna teacher under some scheme of the Chief Minister in which the petitioner had not played any role, he started demanding back the amount of Rs.60,000/- paid by him to the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner was asking for the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the deceased. Secondly, after being appointed, the deceased started living at Punhana with his maternal uncle, which is a place near Baded, where the deceased was posted. In the meanwhile, brother-in-law of Jaikam was murdered. Before accusing the deceased in connection with the murder of his brother-in-law, Jaikam demanded a sum of Rs.10.00 lacs from him for not naming him in that matter. When the deceased refused to oblige him, the petitioner named him as an accused in the case of murder of his brother-in-law and after investigation, the deceased was found innocent. Three days earlier to the death of Khalil Ahmed, Jaikam and others had extended threats openly to the deceased of eliminating him. Three days thereafter, Khalil
Crl. Revision No. 711 of 2012
5
Ahmed was found lying dead. These are the circumstances coming in the statements of Mehboob and Chajju and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh found them to be sufficient to make it appear to him that Jaikam has committed the offence. Merely on the basis of a disclosure statement of Ajmeen, it cannot be held by the court that the petitioner is innocent in this case.
In these circumstances, I do no find the impugned order to be improper or irregular or even illegal and so liable to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. Further, in view of the above, I do not find the petitioner to be entitled to pre-arrest bail. The petitions are, consequently, dismissed.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
March 23rd , 2012 som
2 issues framed by the court
Whether summons under section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon petitioner as additional accused was properly made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under section 438 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan RohtagiReferred¶31
1983 (1) RCR (Criminal) 73
Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.Explained¶31
2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1022
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Jaikam alias Jacum
State of Haryana
Vijender Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
