Page 1

Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2525/13

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.      1834             OF 2013 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2525 of 2013]

Sita Ram …..Appellant

Versus

Balbir @ Bali & Anr. …..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1. Leave granted.    

2. The Appellant, who is the informant in FIR No.141 dated 6.5.2011 at  

Police Station, Kalanaur, District Rohtak, for 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  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  &  Haryana  

granting bail to Respondent no.1, namely, Balbir @ Bali.  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  

1

Page 2

Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2525/13

Balbir/Respondent no.1.  The learned Judge has also noted that the six  

witnesses examined under Section 161, Cr.P.C. have not specifically  

stated that the Respondent no.1 was holding a firearm.  However, what  

emerges  from  their  statements  is  that  on  an  indication  given  by  

Balbir/Respondent no.1, Vishnu was fatally fired upon.  The factum of  

Respondent no.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 Addl.  Sessions Judge,  Rohtak,  by Order dated  

22.3.2012  had  dismissed  the  Bail  Application  filed  by  

Balbir/Respondent no.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 no.1  

had  instructed  them  to  collect  Rs.50,000/-  from  the  

Informant/Appellant  and on being so  told,  the latter  had stated that  

Respondent  no.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 no.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.  Appellant ran away from the spot and  

2

Page 3

Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2525/13

immediately  lodged  a  police  report.   Nevertheless,  at  7:00  p.m.,  

Respondent  no.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 no.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 no.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 no.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  no.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  

3

Page 4

Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2525/13

no.1.  Moreover, the leading role of Respondent no.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 no.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 the IPC have been cited.  By Orders dated 23.1.2013,  

the Addl. 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, 307 read with Section 149,  

323 read with Section 149 IPC against all the accused and in addition  

to this a prima facie case under Section 302 IPC, 109 IPC and 25 of  

Arms Act against Balbir @ Bali, a prima facie case under Section 307  

IPC against Naresh and Rishi, a prima facie case under Section 25 of  

Arms Act against Dinesh @ Kala and Sunil and a prima facie case  

under Section 27 of 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  the  Respondent  no.1  in  the  alleged  crimes.  

Moreover,  the  antecedents  of  Respondent  no.1  are  such  that  a  

reasonably  strong  apprehension  of  his  tampering with  witnesses  or  

leveling of threats is imminent and omnipresent.  The severity of the  

4

Page 5

Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2525/13

attack should not be overlooked.  For these manifold reasons, we set  

aside  the  impugned  Order  dated  11.2.2013,  allow  the  Appeal  and  

cancel  the  bail  granted  to  Respondent  no.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.

....................................................... J.

[T.S. THAKUR]

....................................................... J.

[VIKRAMAJIT SEN] New Delhi   October 24, 2013.

5