Accused, alleged to have conducted recce of place where crime occurred , granted bail in Murder case

Read Order: Vikram v. State of Haryana

LE Staff

Chandigarh, October 8, 2021 : While observing that the only role that was attributed to the accused-petitioner was that he had conducted a recce of the place of occurrence and had informed his co-accused about the movements and presence of the deceased so as to facilitate the commission of crime, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently granted bail to the petitioner in a murder case.

Herein, the petitioner had approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered against him by FIR dated June 5,2020 at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonepat under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act.

The facts pertain to the situation that the FIR was lodged at the instance of Indu wife of Sanjay (deceased). It was alleged that the complainant’s husband namely Sanjay was running a grocery shop at village bus stand. On June 5,2020, at about 6 p.m. when she was going towards her husband’s shop in connection with some personal work, she saw a boy on a motorcycle accompanied by another 3 boys on scooty and that one of the said three boys on scooty was Romil, who was carrying a pistol in his hand. 

It was alleged that even his companions were also carrying pistols. Romil was stated to have fired a shot from the pistol hitting the complainant’s husband on his chest. Another boy fired at the temple of complainant’s husband. When the complainant rushed forward to rescue her husband, Romil threatened her to keep away otherwise she would also be killed. The complainant alleged that Romil and his companions had killed her husband because of old enmity.

The petitioner’s counsel brought forth the case that the petitioner was nowhere named in the FIR and was sought to be nominated on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on June 8,2020 and that the said supplementary statement was apparently an improvement and would not carry any evidentiary value.

The State Counsel while opposing the petition, stated that since the supplementary statement was made shortly after lodging of the FIR i.e. after about 3 days, wherein the petitioner was specifically alleged to have conducted a recce of the place of occurrence so as to facilitate the commission of crime, no case for grant of bail was made out. 

The State counsel also  informed that the petitioner as on date had been behind bars since the last about 1 year and 3 months and that he was not involved in any other case. It had been informed that as on date not even a single prosecution witness out of the cited 14 witnesses were examined and infact charges were yet to be framed.

The Bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill stated that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and came to be nominated subsequently on the basis of supplementary statement recorded on June 8,2020. 

However, even if the said supplementary statement was taken to be correct, still the only role that was attributed to the petitioner was that he had conducted a recce of the place of occurrence and had informed his co-accused about the movements and presence of the deceased so as to facilitate the commission of crime, added the Court.

The Bench noted that it was not the case of prosecution that the petitioner had also participated in firing at the deceased or that he was also present at the spot. The petitioner, in any case, had been behind bars since the last about 1 year and 3 months and conclusion of trial would likely consume time as not even a single PW out of the cited 14 PWs had been examined so far. The petitioner was also not stated to be involved in any other case.

Considering these facts, the Bench held that further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The petition, as such, was accepted and the petitioner has now been ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.