Vikramajit Sen, J.— Leave granted. The appellant, who is the informant in FIR No. 141 dated 6-5-2011 at Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 114, 148, 302, 307, 323 and 325 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, assails the impugned order dated 11-2-2013 Cri Misc. No. M-40691 of 2012 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granting bail to Respondent 1, namely, Balbir alias Bali.
2. The learned Single Judge has been impressed by the fact that the injuries on deceased Vishnu (brother-in-law of the appellant/informant), as mentioned in the FSL report, had been caused by a high speed bullet projectile fired most probably from a .315 bore standard rifle which, according to the version in the FIR, was not the weapon carried by Balbir, Respondent 1. The learned Judge has also noted that the six witnesses examined under Section 161 CrPC have not specifically stated that Respondent 1 was holding a firearm. However, what emerges from their statements is that on an indication given by Balbir, Respondent 1, Vishnu was fatally fired upon. The factum of Respondent 1 having been incarcerated at that time for one year and seven and a half months also appears to have weighed on the learned Single Judge.
3. On the contrary, the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, by order dated 22-3-2012 had dismissed the bail application filed by Balbir, Respondent 1. He had noted that the alleged sequence of events inter alia were that when a donation had been demanded from the appellant he had agreed to match the amount given by his neighbour in the Anaj Mandi, where this entire incident occurred. The persons demanding the donation, however, stated that Respondent 1 had instructed them to collect Rs 50,000 from the informant/appellant and on being so told, the latter had stated that Respondent 1 owed him Rs 5,00,000 out of which they could deduct Rs 2,50,000 as his donation provided the remaining Rs 2,50,000 was returned to him. On this conversation being reported back to Respondent 1, he arrived at approximately 5.00 p.m at the Anaj Mandi and accosted the appellant/informant by verbal abuses as well as by fist-blows. The appellant ran away from the spot and immediately lodged a police report. Nevertheless, at 7:00 p.m, Respondent 1 along with 30-35 supporters armed with weapons again came to the shop of the appellant and administered lathi-blows and also opened fire, leading to injuries to several persons and a fatal injury to Vishnu.
4. We have perused the FIR and are satisfied that the narration of events of the Additional Sessions Judge is consistent thereto. The appellant/informant has mentioned the names of Respondent 1 as also Rajesh, Pawan, Kala, Salad, Mukesh, Kuldip Singh, Satbir, Sombir, Naresh, Rishi and his brothers, Bindu, Hansi, Dharam, Ajit, Leela, Raja and Rajbir and the fact that all these persons were armed with weapons. In the FIR, the appellant/informant has stated that Respondent 1 fired upon his brother-in-law Vishnu from his revolver and thereafter Sombir also fired upon Vishnu. The other persons mentioned also opened fire indiscriminately leading to firearm injuries on several persons who were at the shop of the appellant/informant at that fateful time. Injuries caused by blunt weapons (the FIR speaks of Respondent 1 and party also possessing lathis) find mention in the MLC reports. It is true that the FSL report does not indicate that Vishnu was killed by a revolver shot, allegedly possessed and fired by Balbir, Respondent 1, but more likely from a .315 bore standard rifle, as was possessed by Sombir. However, it is also alleged that Sombir fired on the instigation, instance and indication of Respondent 1. Moreover, the leading role of Respondent 1 is not incredible only because an injury from a revolver has not been reported as he could have fired therefrom and missed Vishnu.
5. This incident had caused public panic in the area, as is evident from contemporary newspaper and journalistic reports. Respondent 1 is indubitably a very influential person in the area, at the time of the incident he was an ex-MLA. Section 109 and Section 149, as envisaged under IPC have been cited. By orders dated 23-1-2013, the Additional Sessions Judge has, on a perusal of the police report and material documents, found existence of a prima facie case under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149, Section 307 read with Section 149, Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC against all the accused and in addition to this a prima facie case under Sections 302 IPC, 109 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act against Balbir alias Bali, a prima facie case under Section 307 IPC against Naresh and Rishi, a prima facie case under Section 25 of the Arms Act against Dinesh alias Kala and Sunil and a prima facie case under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
6. Keeping all these factors in perspective, especially the wide-scale injuries suffered by several persons, there is a strong prima facie case of the involvement of Respondent 1 in the alleged crimes. Moreover, the antecedents of Respondent 1 are such that a reasonably strong apprehension of his tampering with witnesses or levelling of threats is imminent and omnipresent. The severity of the attack should not be overlooked. For these manifold reasons, we set aside the impugned order dated 11-2-2013 Cri Misc. No. M-40691 of 2012, allow the appeal and cancel the bail granted to Respondent 1 who shall surrender to custody forthwith.
7. Nothing stated above should however influence the Sessions Judge and the trial of the case shall be conducted on its own merits.