The court granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. due to the petitioner's lengthy custody, lack of prior naming in the FIR, and completion of investigation, while ensuring witness safety.

Judgment

Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

Present second petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.34, dated 01.03.2021, under Sections 302, 341, 212, 506, 201, 34, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25, 29, 54, 59 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad.

2. Adumbrated facts of the case are that FIR in this case was registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Stalin, son of Rajendra Singh. It was alleged by him that his cousin, namely, Jitendra @ Piki aged 32 years of age, was appointed as JBT teacher in Ramsara Primary School. On 01.03.2021, he along with his cousin, namely, Swatantar Singh was coming in his car from village Mehrana to Government School Ramsara to meet his brother Jitendra Singh @ Piki. On reaching in front of the school, they saw his brother Jitendra Singh @ Piki coming out of the school in his car. They saw two young persons riding motor cycle came in front of the car of their brother, namely Jitendra Singh @ Piki. Thereafter they got down from the motor cycle and started firing at him while sitting in the car. His brother came out of his car and ran back to save his life through the school gate. The assailants chased him. One of the assailant entered the school office chasing his brother and another stood at the gate of the school. His brother was shot at by the assailants on his forehead and chest and as a result, he fell down. The assailants kept on firing at his brother. On being satisfied that his brother is dead, the assailants escaped from there flaunting the pistols and threatening others to be killed in case anyone tried to interfere. They took their brother in an Ambulance to the Government Hospital, Fatehabad where the Doctors declared him dead. It was prayed that their brother was killed by unknown assailants by conspiring and hence, the legal action be taken. On the registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded. The post-mortem of the dead body of Jitendra Singh @ Piki was conducted. During investigation, co-accused were arrested and on the disclosure of one of the co-accused, the petitioner was named in the FIR. He was arrested on 28.10.2022. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad for grant of bail. However, the same was declined by the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 02.03.2023. The petitioner on the earlier occasion approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M No.25120 of 2023, however, the same was allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.05.2023. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court again by way of filing the present second petition for grant of bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in this case. He submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. However, he has been named in this case on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused, namely, Anil Kumar. He submits that false and frivolous recovery of car has been planted on the petitioner in order to falsely implicate him. He submits that out of total 11 accused, 04 are already on bail. He submits that out of the 04 accused, 03 were granted bail by the trial Court whereas the 04th accused, namely, Vinod Kumar has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2022. He submits that co-accused Vinod Kumar was named by the complainant in his supplementary statement. He submits that the petitioner was clandestinely involved in this case on the basis of disclosure statement made by the co-accused, which is not an admissible evidence. He submits that case of the petitioner is on a much better footing than that of Vinod Kumar, who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2022. He submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated in other two