Punjab and Haryana HC seeks explanation from Rohtak judge over bail to murder accused

CHANDIGARH: Apparently surprised over the grant of bail to the accused allegedly involved in a case of murder and related charges by ignoring some crucial facts, the Punjab and Haryana high court has asked an additional district and sessions judge, Rohtak, to explain passing such an order.
The judge has been told to submit his explanation by June 30, when the matter would come up again for hearing before HC.
Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan of HC passed these orders while hearing a petition filed by Ram Kumar, one of the accused seeking regular bail. The petitioner, a resident of Rohtak district, was facing an FIR dated March 22, 2019, registered in relation to murder, attempt to murder, related charges of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Arms Act. Later, charges of attempt to murder were deleted and new charges under Section 324 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapon) of IPC were added.
Judge only considered autopsy, not medico-legal evidence: HC
While seeking his release on regular bail, the petitioner’s counsel primarily relied upon two orders dated April 22 and 29, 2020, passed by the additional sessions Judge, Rohtak, vide which regular bail was granted to co-accused Ravinder alias Mausam and Jai Bhagwan, respectively.
“A careful perusal of both the aforesaid orders shows that while granting bail to the said co-accused, the additional sessions judge has only considered the postmortem report of deceased Manjit and has not considered the medico legal report qua the injuries sustained by eyewitness Anuj, wherein injury number 3 to 6 are bluish bruises which can be caused by a lathi which the petitioner as well as co-accused Jai Bhagwan were holding,” Justice Sangwan observed while hearing Kumar’s bail plea on Friday.
Even the counsel for state opposed the bail on the ground that till the statement of the complainant as well as eyewitness is recorded, the petitioner should not be granted bail as he could misuse the same by influencing the prosecution witnesses.
The state counsel also submitted that the next date before the trial court is May 22 for recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses.
HC adjourned the hearing of the case till June 30 observing, “The additional sessions judge, Rohtak, is directed to submit an explanation with regard to passing of aforesaid orders (April 22 and 29), on or before the next date of hearing.”