Gaurav v. State Of Haryana






    
   

!" "#$%$ & '( '(














    
 



 



  ) *(+
 ++     


 
 





 




  
 !

 " 





#"

    ++ ,(-. /0 $ %
  





 " 
  


&'(

) 
 ) #

"



 
* 
 *"
! "

+,
 &-(  
'..-/.$0
  



$&-
$&(
'.1
'./
'1(
,)
 


/2


#

3


''/
'2'

'1(45
$/.45
,)
 
 


'1(  "


"

 *  

 "

 

 #
7



8 / It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody from 04.10.2017 which is almost five years and nine months. He submitted that as of now only 3 prosecution witnesses out of 48 have been examined and the complainant has already been examined. He further submitted

 

that the petitioner was a juvenile but by way of order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtak on 20.08.2018 he was directed to be tried as an adult. Thereafter, the trial of the case is not progressing and only three prosecution witnesses have been examined with the result the petitioner has faced incarceration for about five years and nine months. He submitted that the other coaccused namely Badsha and Anil have already been admitted to regular bail by this Court vide Annexure P-4 and P-5, respectively. He further submitted that although there are some other cases registered against the petitioner but the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case only because of the pendency of the other cases against him and even otherwise also considering the long custody of the petitioner and in the light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner may be considered for the grant of regular bail. 4.

On the other hand, 


"  


  has submitted that it is correct that the petitioner has already faced incarceration for about 5 years and 9 months but has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that a direct role is attributable to the petitioner whereby he fired shot at the father of the complainant who was a teacher in a school and who died consequently. He submitted that considering the gravity of the offence and also the fact that the petitioner is involved in seven other cases and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of regular bail. 5.

Mr. Shobit Phutela, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has also opposed the grant of bail


*  




 " 



 



 
 




4

 
9

" 
!

* 
 *"
! "
!


) 




 




9

 6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7.

In the present case the petitioner has already faced incarceration for about five years and nine months. The learned Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtak had directed the trial of the petitioner as an adult way back on 20.08.2018 and as per learned counsel for the parties, only three prosecution witnesses out of 48 have been examined. Furthermore, the complainant has already been examined. Although there are seven more cases against the petitioner but the long custody of the petitioner has to be considered for grant of bail to the petitioner.

This Court is of the view that since the trial of the case is not progressing fast and the petitioner has already faced incarceration for about five years and nine months and the fact that the petitioner is also involved in seven more cases which cannot become a ground for denial of bail to the petitioner. Learned State counsel has pointed out that the injured and an eye witness are yet to be examined and therefore the petitioner should not be granted bail, also cannot become a ground for denial of bail to the petitioner considering the long custody of the petitioner. 8.

In view of the aforesaid position and in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner deserves the concession of grant of regular bail. )

 : "
the present petition is allowed. %



""
!
 "  

 *"
! "

 :  

 


!;



*
! "

!

< 








"  
"
)  <7 
* 


(  9  
 

*
!  
 

!


""

!
  

 = 



# 



 


"
# 
 
 







- ++0   1/2 ',



















 >  
 8

*  ? <

>  
  !"

 ? <