Sunder Singh v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.02.2025 Sunder Singh ....Petitioner V/s
....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:
Ms. Pallavi Babbar, Advocate for the petitioner.
***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.
!"
#$#" % % %&'()*$
$*++#$##%
+$ ,- , #$+# *$) '- . & # / &'( 0 1 2 34
5
!
"# $ %
& &
"
' #
()*)+ , (
- .!
/
!
!
))
0
*1))2*22 *3**+
!
! !4+
! ! $ !
/
#
!#
#
- !
5
!
/
# #
4 + !
+
+
5 6 ! #+
!
-
5
56
!
5
5 #
+
!
+ # # 5 +
! - ! ! ! !
!
/ !
+ +
- !
- #
+ #
+
# 5 ! !7 !
5
"/8 &9*.))2*22 &9 $"$" "77" %& :
9 "
- !
+ !
-
.*;,)*,", # ;.*
*.))2*22
.*;,)* ,",
# !
+ # + +
+
#
+
+ +
! !
!+
& 3<=;
-
5 !
!
++
!
5
+ #
- +
!
+
$"$"> 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 07.11.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as there was a money dispute between the petitioner and father of victim. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the statement of the prime prosecution witness namely the victim stands recorded and, thus, there is no likelihood that the petitioner would be in a position to influence the substantive prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner; while referring to the order dated 26.02.2024, 05.04.2024 as also 16.05.2024 passed by the learned trial Cout; has urged that the trial is proceeding at a snail's pace and fault thereof cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that there are material discrepancies in the testimony of the victim. On the strength of the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. 4.
Counsel for the State has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. 5.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
6.
The petitioner was arrested on 07.11.2022 & thereafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 26.11.2022
wherein total 13 witnesses have been cited, out of which 2 only have been examined. It is not disputed that the prime prosecution witness namely the victim already stands examined as PW-1. The rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties; as to the whether the appellant has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as also the material discrepancies (if any) in the testimony of the prime prosecution witness namely the victim shall be gone into during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage lest it may prejudice the rights of either of the parties.
% % % 6 % 7 % 7 % Inevitably, the petition in hand preferred on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail is the second one. The first petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner came to be withdrawn on 09.04.2024, as the victim was yet to be examined as a prosecution witness at that point of time.
7.
Accordingly, keeping in view the entirety and totality of facts and circumstances of the case; specially the factum of the victim now having been examined as a prosecution witness and the petitioner having suffered further incarceration of about 8 months more after the earlier bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn, this Court proceeds to consider favourably the plea for grant of bail to the appellant, since as per the custody certificate there is no other case pending against the petitioner.
Suffice to say, the further detention of the petitioner in custody is not required in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
8.
In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
9.
Ordered accordingly.
10.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
11.
Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE February 07, 2025 Naveen Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No