Ashish Alias Ashu Alias Tinku v. State Of Haryana And Another
236 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-12281-2024 in/and CRA-S-1102-2024 Date of decision : 21.03.2024 Ashish @ Ashu @ Tinku ....Applicant/appellant
Versus
State of Haryana & anr.
....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN ***
Present:
Mr. Abhishek Goel, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) CRM-12281-2024 Exemption application is allowed, as prayed for. CRA-S-1102-2024 Challenge is to the order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the ASJ, Sonepat whereby the application filed by the appellant seeking regular bail in case FIR No.40, dated 22.01.2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/324/506 and 34 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act at Police Station City Gohana, District Sonipat, stands dismissed.
2.
FIR was registered on the statement of one Raj Kumar son of Ram Niwas alleging as under:
"xxx it is requested that I Raj Kumar son of Ram Niwas resident of ward no 10 Arya Nagar Gohana stay along with my Father Ram Niwas and Virender son of Gaj Singh stay together at Araya Nagar. Today at about 1:30 AM some unknown boys got into our house and told that get out of the house, we are going to set your house on fire, being scared I made noises hearing which my family members came and they attacked by father with knives and also Virender who is the son of my Tayaji. Virender died during treatment because of the injuries suffered during the fight. I have suspicion on Ashok son of Partap, Sonu son of Pratap, Rohtash son of Kartar, Mukesh son of Diwan, Krishan son of Ram Mehar all residents of Arya Nagar and Ramesh @ Rama and his son Ronaq residents of Sorkhi. Legal proceedings be initiated against them. S/d Rajkumar.
3.
As per the prosecution, Ram Niwas during the course of investigation suffered a statement on 22nd of January, 2023 wherein he named Rohit as one of the culprits. The said Rohit further suffered disclosure wherein he named the present appellant along with other co-accused on 24th of January, 2023. Counsel for the appellant has referred to the statement made by Ram Niwas the injured who appeared as PW1 before the Trial Court and his testimony has been placed on record as Annexure A-7. Counsel submits that Ram Niwas an injured witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile witness. Likewise, complainant Raj Kumar appeared as PW2 and his testimony has been placed on record as Annexure A-8. Referring thereto, counsel for the
appellant submits that from bare perusal thereof, it is evident that Raj Kumar admitted that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence and that he never moved any complaint apart from Ex.P2 against Ashok, Sonu, Mukesh and Krishan. Counsel further submits that even if the statement suffered by Ram Niwas during the course of investigation is taken on its face value, the same does not implicate the present appellant but implicates Rohit only. 4.
On being asked specifically w.r.t. the incriminating evidence against the appellant, State Counsel has very fairly admitted that apart from disclosures made by co-accused that too while in police custody, there is nothing incriminating against the appellant and further submits that no recovery has been made from the appellant.
5.
Faced with the situation counsel for the appellant submits that there is no such allegation in the FIR. He further relies upon order dated 11.03.2024 passed in CRA-S-795-2024 whereby co-accused Parveen @ Bhandari stands admitted to bail.
6.
Appellant is behind bars for more than 1 year, 1 month and 26 days. Not only the challan stands presented but material witnesses also stand examined. They have not supported the case of the prosecution. 7.
In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, keeping in view the incarceration suffered by the appellant and the nature of allegation against him, the present appeal is allowed. The appellant is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
8.
Needless to say that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. March 21, 2024 (PANKAJ JAIN) Pooja Sharma-I JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No