Sanjay v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 18.04.2022 SANJAY




















STATE OF HARYANA 
 



   

Present:

Mr. RS Randhawa, Advocate and Mr. Karan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

 
 

  


   



 
!"
#

"  $$$$    






"

%

 
#  & 
'(

')*
 


" 

+,"


,

 &" 

  

 "



 


  
"




Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case bearing FIR No.269 dated 24.07.2020, registered under Sections 120-B, 201, 302, 364, 365, 34 IPC, at Police Station Arya Nagar, District Rohtak Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the petitioner has been named in the FIR nor any specific role has been

-2attributed to him and that the petitioner has been indicted in the present case on the basis of the disclosure statements of co-accused, namely, Sandeep and Dharam Singh and also on the basis of the supplementary statement recorded by the complainant on 26.07.2020. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the visitor's entry registry of Viat Milk Plant Rohtak, according to which, the petitioner was present there on 24.07.2020 from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and also to the confessional statements of co-accused, namely, Nathu @ Nanha and Sanjay. Still further, it is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 18.08.2020.

On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that there are specific and direct allegations against the petitioner, inasmuch as, he along with the other co-accused had conspired with each other to eliminate Virender (deceased). He further submits that on 24.07.2020, the co-accused entered the Court premises, where Virender had to meet his Advocate for the purpose of filing a bail application and they had kidnapped him and later on killed him. Virender's body was found near Jind Road. Still further, it is submitted that, in the video clip, the petitioner can be seen holding hands of Virender and actively participating in the occurrence. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The allegations against the petitioner are specific and direct, inasmuch as, he had caught hold the hands of the deceased, while the coaccused had throttled his neck. The petitioner had played an active role in

-3kidnapping and murdering the deceased. The petitioner has specifically been named in the confessional statements of co-accused, namely, Nathu @ Nanha and Sanjay. The crime committed is grievous in nature. In view of the above, no ground is made out to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Dismissed.

!"

   

  
-  #  


     Whether reportable :

Yes/No