VINOD ALIAS BITTU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions namely, Cr. M. 4488 -M and Cr. M. 19713 -M of 2000 for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arise from the same F.I.R. and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) F .I.R. 95 dated 12.3.1999 has been registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Rohtak under Sections 148, 302, 307, 452 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act on the statement of Kuldip Singh, wherein the following material allegations are found : -

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner -Vinod alias Bittu had not been named in the F.I.R. at all, but was named by complainant -Kuldip Singh in his supplementary statement recorded on 15.3.1999. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that in the F.I.R. the complainant has mentioned only the names of Pappu Gaba, Mangi Khanna, Manu and about two other young boys only, whereas in the supplementary statement, the complainant has stated that of the assailants, 7 were known persons and 2 were injured. They contend that apart from this improvement, the complainant has further improved by stating that Satish and Om Parkash, who are not mentioned in the F.I.R. at all, have now been introduced as eye -witnesses. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contend that while in the F.I.R., the complainant has stated that all the accused went away in a Tata Sumo vehicle, in the supplementary statement, he has introduced a Maruti car and scooters. They also contended that prosecution has examined 3 eye -witnesses and none of them has supported the prosecution, while Kuldip Singh, the complainant and who was also an eye -witness, is dead. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners contend that all the material witnesses have been examined before the trial Court, and that there is no incriminating evidence against the petitioners at all and, therefore, they are entitled to be released on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner -Vinod also states that even in the supplementary statement, there is no overt act attributed to him. It is also contended that the alleged recovery of a pistol from him is only the result of the padding by the Investigating Agency, and that if the complainant had really known this petitioner, he would have certainly named him in the. F.I.R. itself. The petitioners have also placed on record the copies of the statements of the alleged eye -witness given before the trial Court to show that they have not supported the case of the prosecution at all. It is contended by the learned counsel for the State also that all the 5 eye - witnesses have turned hostile and that Kuldip Singh, the other eye -witness, who is also the complainant, is also dead.