Sonu v. State Of Haryana
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sonu ... Petitioner Vs.
State of Haryana ... Respondent 1.
The date when the judgment is reserved 10.11.2025 2.
The date when the judgment is pronounced 29.11.2025 3.
The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 01.12.2025 4.
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full 5.
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:
Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Apoorv Garg, Additional Advocate General,Haryana. Mr. Sartaj Singh Narula, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Advocate, Mr. G.S. Dhillon,, Advocate, Mr. A.S. Sandhu, Advocate and Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, Advocate for the complainant. ...
Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking grant
-2of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.78 dated 16.12.2020, registered under Sections 148, 149, 302, 307, 323 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act (offences under Sections 201, 324, 325 IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act were added later on), at Police Station Munak, District Karnal.
2. The adumbrated facts as emanating from the record are that on 16.12.2020, on receipt of a telephonic information regarding apprehension of some altercation to take place between the members of Kisna Pana of village Gagsina and of members of rival party over some land dispute, a police party headed by SI Kuldeep Singh reached at village Gagsina-Kapro road, where a huge crowd of people was found to be present. On reaching there, dead bodies of two persons, namely, Dilbagh and Parveen were found lying at the spot. Complainant - Virender Singh, who was present there, submitted a written complaint that some land belonging to members of Kisna Pana was abutting the road proceeding from village Gagsina to Kapro and accused Yudhvir, Jasbir, Randhul, Ram Mehar, Dilbagh and Kuldeep had taken possession of the said land, in an illegal manner.
On the same day, some respectable members of Kisna Pana including the victims, had reached at the disputed land and were getting the foundation dug through some JCB machine for raising construction of a wall, when the accused persons including the present petitioner accompanied by several other persons reached there. They were armed with weapons and they opened an assault upon the members of the complainant party with their respective weapons after making exhortations. The shots raised with firearms had injured Parveen, Balraj and Dilbagh, who had died at the spot. Other members of their party had also sustained several injuries. The dead body of Balraj had already been sent to CHC, Gharonda.
-3FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. 3.
As per the further allegations, post mortem examination of the dead bodies of the victims and inquest proceedings were conducted. The injured/victims were medically examined. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The petitioner was arrested on 15.01.2021. he was extended benefit of interim bail vide order dated 03.02.2025 by this Court.
4.
It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Neither any specific injury nor any weapon or specific overt act has been attributed to him. He had no motive to commit the subject offence. Recovery of his own mobile phone is claimed to have been effected from him, which cannot be considered to be recovery of any incriminating article. 21 out of 40 persons as named in the FIR have been found to be innocent and this shows the falsity of the accusations as levelled by the complainant party. The members of the opposite party were the aggressors and not the petitioner and the co-accused. The complainant Virender singh while appearing as PW6 has not involved him in commission of subject offence. No specific injury or act has been attributed to him.
A de novo trial has started after allowing application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the complainant and by summoning of 19 persons as additional accused. Trial will take indefinite time to conclude since there are 76 prosecution witnesses in this case. He has not misused the concession of interim bail granted to him. He has permanent abode. There are no chances of his absconding. He remained in custody for a period of more than 04 years and 01 month. He has clean antecedents. No purpose would be served, if he is detained in custody again.
-4submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5.
Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and specific in nature. It is a case of triple murder. The petitioner was named in the FIR. He formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and had assaulted the victims and other members of the complainant party. Three of the victims succumbed to the firearm injuries and had died. There are chances of petitioner's intimidating the witness or absconding. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
6.
This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length. 7.
It will be relevant to mention here that the petitioner had been extended benefit of interim bail vide order dated 03.02.2025 passed by this Court.
8.
The petitioner by forming membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused is alleged to have assaulted the members of the complainant party. Three of whom had succumbed to the injuries sustained by them, whereas others had sustained injuries. Even mere presence of a person in the unlawful assembly makes him liable for the acts of such assembly provided there is evidence of active mind on the part of such accused to achieve a common object. The complainant Virender in his sworn deposition is not shown to have named the petitioner but PW7 Dhan Singh is shown to have stated before the learned trial Court that the present petitioner had fired a shot with a gun, thereby hitting his abdomen. The allegations prima facie show his
-5involvement in the occurrence while having knowledge that the subject offence were likely to be committed in prosecution of common object. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. 9.
In the instant case, the petitioner along with the co-accused by forming membership of an unlawful assembly is alleged to have gone to the house of Ram Mehar, where the members of other party were digging foundation. A fight had taken place between them. The petitioner is shown to have joined the co-accused and opened an attack upon the members of kisna pana. The allegations prima facie show his clear involvement/participation in the occurrence while having knowledge that the such offences were likely to be committed in prosecution of common object. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as he along with co-accused stands accused of a heinous crime punishable with capital punishment or life imprisonment.
While length of incarceration is a factor that weighs with the Court in considering bail, it cannot overshadow the seriousness of the accusation of murder under Section 302 IPC. The material witnesses are yet to be examined. Reference in this context can be had to the observations made in Parmod Kumar Saxena Vs. UOI, 2008(63) ACC (SC), Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC, 242 and State through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 280(SC). It is well-settled proposition of law that grant of bail is a discretionary relief to be granted or denied based on specific facts and circumstance of each case and there cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for grant of bail.
-6nature of accusations, severity of punishment if the accusations entail a conviction and nature of evidence in support of accusations are to be seen. That apart, reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening the material witnesses is also to be weighed. Frivolity of prosecution should always be considered, and it is only the element of genuineness that has to be considered in the matter of grant of bail. 10.
In light of the foregoing legal principles and other circumstances as discussed above, this Court finding no compelling ground to allow this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 11.
The petitioner, who is on interim bail in pursuance of order dated 03.02.2025, is directed to surrender within a period of one week from today before the learned trial Court, failing which, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to initiate proper proceedings for securing his presence in the Court.
12.
It is clarified that any observation made in this order is only for deciding this petition and shall not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 29.11.2025 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No