MOHIT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(P&H)-2011-2-339
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on February 14,2011

MOHIT Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.S. Saron, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
(2.) THE Petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 13.8.2009 for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC; besides, Section 25 of the Arms Act. In the FIR which has been registered on the statement of Balraj alias Baal it has been alleged that on 12.8.2009 the complainant had gone for a birthday party of his friend, namely, Bijender. They were 15 -20 friends present at the birthday party. At about 11.00 p.m. after the party ended the complainant along with his friends Ajay and Ravi Bhardwaj were standing on the road towards Sector 3, Faridabad. At that time, a white colour Tata Safari vehicle stopped near them and Jangli and Billa; besides, Raj and Mohit (Petitioner) got down from the said vehicle. All had pistols in their hands and they fired upon Balraj, Ajay and Ravi Bhardwaj. Mohit (Petitioner) it is alleged fired 3 -4 shots upon Balraj so as to kill him. The shots had passed over by his right side. The complainant got perplexed and in order to save themselves ran here and there and a gun shot hit on the back of Ravi Bhardwaj near his spine. Thereafter, the four assailants, namely, Jangli, Billa, Raju and Mohit (Petitioner) fled away in their Tata Safari vehicle towards Ballabgarh. Ajit the companion of the complainant brought his vehicle and got Ravi Bhardwaj admitted in Escort Hospital, Faridabad for treatment. The reason for the grouse was that the complainant and Mohit had money transactions on account of which a dispute had occurred which was going on between them. Due to the said reason it is alleged that Mohit along with his friends Jangli, Billa and Raju, who were having pistols in their hands fired gun shots upon the complainant and with an intention to kill him and a gun shot hit on the back of his friend Ravi Bhardwaj.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the injured witness, namely, Mai Pal (PW -2) whose statement (Annexure -P.1) is on record; besides, Naveen Bhardwaj (PW -5), whose statement (Annexure -P.2) is on record, have not supported the prosecution case. The Petitioner, it is submitted, is in custody since 18.10.2009.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.