Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
Petitioner-Durgesh son of Nawal Singh, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of regular bail, in a case registered against him along with his wife Bharti and Anoop, vide FIR No. 414 dated 29.10.2013, on accusation of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station DLF Qutub Enclave, Gurgaon.
2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context.
4. Indisputedly, the present case was registered against the accused in the wake of statement of complainant Puneet, brother of Gitender, deceased, in which, he has claimed that on 29.10.2013, petitioner and his other co-accused were present at the spot and petitioner fired a short, culminating into death of Gitender. During the course of investigation, Bharti and Anoop, co-accused of the petitioner were found to be innocent and exonerated by the police. Subsequently, complainant Puneet, while appearing as PW-2 in the Court did not support the prosecution case at all and has resiled from his earlier statement (Annexure P-5 colly.), wherein, he has stated that petitioner did not cause the murder of Gitender. On the contrary some 5/6 persons came and started firing on them, causing the death of Gitender, deceased. Not only that, another witness of the prosecution Abhishek Yadav, while appearing as PW-3 in the Court, has also resiled from his earlier statement. What is the evidentiary value and admissibility of such statements of complainant PW-2 Puneet and PW-3 Abhishek Yadav (Hostile witnesses), against the petitioner, inter alia, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court.
5. Be that as it may, the petitioner was arrested on 29.10.2013 Since then, he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. The conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.
6. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the indicated evidence of hostile witnesses, totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, during the course of trial of main case, the instant petition for regular bail is accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail.
Comments