- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State
(2.) THE contention of the present petitioners is that they have been implicated falsely. THE name of the petitioner Nishant Punyani has not been disclosed in the FIR, in the statements of the eye-witnesses and even in the statement of the complainant. His name has been first mentioned in the statement of Mohan @ Sonu etc., whose statement has been recorded on 7.12.2011, whereas the incident is of 26.11.2011. No specific injury or overt act has been assigned to the present petitioner and similarly situated co- accused Hani @ Harish has already been released on bail. The contention of the petitioner Lalit Kumar is that cause of death has been shown as head injury and no head injury has been shown in the medical report prepared on the day of the incident, i.e. 26.11.2011 and the concerned doctor who has prepared the injury report has also stated that the deceased was not having any injury on the head. Meaning thereby that the present petitioner has no relation with the causing of this head injury. He has been implicated on the strength of oral dying declaration but this dying declaration has not been relied by the investigator himself. Three persons Naveen, Dipu and Pintu who are named in the dying declaration have not been charge-sheeted and the doctor has stated that when the deceased admitted in the hospital he was in semi-conscious state and in admission ticket it has been specifically stated that he was in coma, hence there was no occasion for making any dying declaration. Hence the present petitioner Lalit Kumar should also be released on bail. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that case of Hani @ Harish is not identical with the present petitioner Nishant Punyani as the auto rickshaw has been recovered from his instance. In answer to this, the contention of the present petitioner is that he, eye-witnesses, accused and even the complainant, all are tampoo plier and even if the injured person has been taken in his tampoo to the hospital, on this fact he cannot be involved in the offence. Without going into the merit of the case and looking at the fact that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner Nishant Punyani and his name does not appear in the FIR and in the statement of the complainant and the eye-witnesses, it is a fit case to release the petitioner Nishan Punyani on bail. As regard the petitioner Lalit Kumar, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that he has been specifically named in the FIR, in the statements of the eye-witnesses and oral dying declaration is also against him.
(3.) AT this stage, veracity of the oral dying declaration cannot be weighed minutely. 12 other cases are also pending against the petitioner Lalit Kumar. The contention of the petitioner is that all the cases are of minor nature but list of the cases goes to show that cases for the offences under Sections 307, 326 and 308, IPC are also pending against the present petitioner. Hence looking to the gravity of the offence, involvement of the petitioner and his criminal antecedents, it is not a fit case to release the petitioner Lalit Kumar on bail. Accordingly the bail application of the petitioner Lalit Kumar is hereby rejected and the bail application of petitioner Nishant Punyani @ Shanu @ Fadaki is hereby allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Nishant Punyani @ Shanu @ Fadaki s/o Satnam Das in connection with FIR No. 529/2011 of Police Station Kotwali District Sri Ganganagar shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before that court on the next date of hearing and on subsequent dates whenever called upon to do so.;