Dharampal v. State Of Haryana
CRM-M-10312-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-10312-2022
Reserved on: 01.04.2022
Pronounced on: 04.05.2022 Dharampal
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Prashant Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the complainant. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 25.05.2019 City Rewari, 148, 149, 302, 307, 201 IPC District Rewari and 25 of Arms Act, 1959 1.
The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest in the FIR captioned above, came up before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) seeking bail.
2.
In paragraph 17 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3.
The petitioner along with other assailants came to the house of the complainant and fired upon the occupants. The petitioner and one of the co-accused Dhammal were wielding country made weapon. The petitioner fired upon complainant and Dhammal fired upon Aditya, who later on succumbed to the injuries. 4.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. 5.
Ld. counsel representing the State opposes bail. The contention of behalf of the complainant is that the petitioner had fired with a common intention to kill occupants of the house, and as such all the accused are jointly liable for the murder, hence not entitled to bail.
JYOTI 2022.05.05 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-10312-2022 REASONING:
6.
As per the status report, although deceased died due to the shot fired by Dhammal, yet, the petitioner was also having a country made pistol and he had also fired upon. Thus, to say at this stage, that he did not act in furtherance of the common object or did not share common intention would be stretching too far at the bail stage. An analysis of the allegations and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the petitioner.
7.
In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner fails to make a case for bail at this stage.
8. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. Petition dismissed in aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 04.05.2022 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.
JYOTI 2022.05.05 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document