The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of direct evidence linking the accused to the crime, absence of recovery, and the influence of bail granted to a co-accused in determining the grant of bail.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - This is a first petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR no.45 dated 24.02.2020 registered under Sections 307, 427, 506, 34 IPC and Sections 25/54 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 148, 149, 341, 302, 120-B IPC added later on) at Police Station B.P.T.P. Faridabad, District Faridabad.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case as per the FIR, three persons have been named, i.e. Rajender, Kulbhushan alias Kullu and Rahul, who were all stated to have been armed with pistols in their hands and had fired shots on Anil alias Anni and Dharmender alias Bhoora. It has been submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. It has further been submitted that Anil alias Anni had died on 06.03.2020 and on 11.05.2020, the challan was presented against three persons, i.e. Rajender, Rajender Singh alias Robert Nagar and Rahul and not against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is sought to be implicated on the basis of disclosure statement of Kulbhushan alias Kullu which was recorded on 21.10.2020, after the said Kulbhushan alias Kullu was arrested and as per the said disclosure statement, it was stated that the present petitioner was also made to sit in the car which was being driven by Kulbhushan alias Kullu and in which they had gone to the place of occurrence. It has also been submitted that even as per the said statement, no overt act much less firing from the pistol has been attributed to the present petitioner. It has been stated that statement of Vinod, brother of the deceased, was also recorded on 04.03.2020 and even as per the said statement of Vinod, there is no specific attribution to the present petitioner. It has also been stated that no recovery has been made from the present petitioner and the petitioner has been in custody since 21.11.2020 and there are 44 prosecution witnesses and none of them have been examined. It has been submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and the co-accused of the petitioner namely Rajender Singh @ Robert Nagar, who was named in the supplementary statement made by the complainant on 04.03.2020, has already been granted the benefit of regular bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.09.2021, passed in CRM-M-26197-2021.

3. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the present petition for regular bail and have submitted that the petitioner is also part of the conspiracy, in furtherance of which, Anil alias Anni had died and Dharmender alias Bhoora had suffered grievous injuries and as per the statement of Vinod as well as Kulbhushan alias Kullu, the present petitioner was also present in the car in which the accused persons had gone at the place of occurrence. The other facts have not been disputed.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.

5. In the FIR, three persons have been specifically named, i.e. Rajender, Rahul and Kulbhushan alias Kullu who were stated to have been armed with pistols in their hands and have also allegedly fired shots on Anil alias Anni and Dharmender alias Bhoora. The petitioner was not named in the FIR. The petitioner has been implicated in the case on the basis of the statement made by Vinod brother of the deceased on 04.03.2020, as well as, on the basis of disclosure statement made by Kulbhushan alias Kullu on 21.10.2020 and as per both these statements, no specific injury has been attributed to the present petitioner. As per the version given by Kulbhushan alias Kullu, which was recorded on 21.10.2020, it has been stated that the petitioner was also made to sit in the car along with the other accused persons while they were going to the alleged place of occurrence. Thus, as per the prosecution case, neither any specific injury has been attributed to the present petitioner nor the petitioner was stated to ha