S.S. Saron, J.@mdashThis is a second application for the grant of bail to the petitioner-Karamvir alias Karambir, who is an accused in the case FIR No.63 dated 21.4.2004 registered at Police Station Kharkoda for the offences under Sections 148,149,452,307,302,449 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier application for bail of the petitioner was declined by this Court on 5.3.2004 and it was observed that a specific injury with a country made pistol is attributed to the petitioner on fee person of Mahabir. He, however, submits that after rejection of the bail in respect of the petitioner similarly situated accused i.e. Amit alias Kala has been granted bail by this Court on 9.8.2004 (Annexure P-13) and Parveen Kumar has been granted bail on 29.11.2004 (Annexure P-14). In the circumstances, it is contended that the role attributed to the petitioner being similar, the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail on parity.
3. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail as his earlier bail application was declined by this Court. Besides, on the basis of disclosure statement made by him a country made pistol was recovered from his possession.
4. I have given by thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It may appropriately be noticed that Mahavir to whom a fire arm injury is attributed to have been caused by the petitioner on the left arm is a witness in the case and the deceased in this case is one Jagbir. The petitioner is not alleged to have caused any injury to Jagbir (deceased). A perusal of the statement of Mahabir recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. on 27.4.2004 (Annexure P-2) shows that it is alleged by him that the petitioner opened fire with his country made pistol which hit him on his left arm. However, he also stated that Amit also fired shot with his country made pistol at Mehtab which hit near his left temple. Besides, Kartar Singh fired with his gun, the pellets of which hit Satish Brahmin on the upper portion of his right waist and hit on the mouth and neck etc. of Dhiraj. According to the statement (Annexure P-2) of Mahabir, Parveen also fired with his pistol which hit on the eye of Rajpal.
5. In respect of Amit accused, this Court in terms of order dated 9.8.2004 (Annexure P-10) referred to the statement of Dalel Singh son of Lakhi Ram and Rajiv son of Sukhbir, according to which it was observed that the fire shot injury caused by Amit accused only hit Narain Singh and Atma Ram co-accused and not Mehtab as alleged by the prosecution. In view of this, concession of bail was given to Amit. The second application for regular bail of Kartar Singh was allowed by this Court on 12.10.2004 (Annexure P-13). It was contended by the learned counsel for Kartar Singh that the said accused had not caused any injury to the deceased and he is alleged to have caused injuries to the witness. Besides, he was arrested on 28.4.2004. Parveen Kumar, who is stated to have fired with his pistol which hit the right eye of Rajpal was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.11.2004 (Annexure P-14). It was observed that according to the medical evidence Rajbir had a black eye of the right side and that it would be for the trial Court to determine whether this injury could have been caused by fire arm or not. It was also noticed that Parveen Kumar had spent sufficient time in custody for having allegedly injured Rajbir (PW-1). Besides, Parveen Kumar accused, it was observed, did not inflict any injury on the deceased nor fired at him although he was stated to have fired at the car.
6. In the case in hand, as already noticed, the petitioner is stated to have fired with his country made pistol on the left arm of Mahavir. Therefore, no injury is attributed to the petitioner on the person of the deceased. Besides, the petitioner admittedly is in custody since 27.4.2002 and the prosecution has examined 19 witnesses out of 36 witnesses and the next date of hearing as 21.2.2005. The trial of the case is likely to take some time. Keeping in view the fact that the co-accused of the petitioner namely Amit alias Kala, Kartar Singh and Parveen Kumar have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 9.8.2004 (Annexure P-10), 12.10.2004 (Annexure P-13) and 29.11.2004 (Annexure P-14), it would be just and expedient to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner also on the basis of parity.
7. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed and the petitioner shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond and surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat.
