Deepak Kumar v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 01.04.2025 Deepak Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Pradeep Chhoker, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Harpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 03.09.2022 Tehsil Camp 341, 323, 302, 148, 149 IPC Panipat 1.

The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail. 2.

In paragraph 15 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3.

The facts and allegations are taken from the translated copy of the FIR annexed with the bail petition, which reads as follows: "Copy of complaint is as follows: To the SHO, police station Tehsil Camp, Panipat. Sir, it is requested that I Rishipal S/o Mohanlal resident of Gogwan, P.S Jhijana, district Shamli, UP, currently I am a tenant of a house of Salu R/o Arjun Nagar, near Sabji Mandi, Panipat. I have 3 sons; my elder son's name is Akash, younger to him is Vikas and the youngest is Deepak. A few days ago my son Vikas had an altercation with Ankush S/o Ravinder resident of Harinagar, Panipat over some issue, holding a grudge for which Ankush came to our house a few days ago with his friends to beat up my son Vikas. Yesterday on 02.09.2022 my friend Vikas along with his friend Sahil S/o Mahabir Singh R/o Arjun Nagar came to

roam around Barsat Road PVR at around 10 PM where Ankush above mentioned along with his friends Sanjay alias Sanju S/o Balwan R/o Siddharth Nagar Colony Panipat and Ajay S/o Sandeep R/o Sidharth Nagar Panipat and 6-7 boys came on their motorcycle with weapons. They blocked the way of my sons Vikas and Sahil above mentioned and started beating them with sticks and weapons. My son Vikas got severe injuries on head and hands and legs with sticks and weapons. Then all of them fled from the spot leaving my son Vikas half dead. Then the ambulance came with my son to the Government Hospital, Panipat. On receiving this information, I and my son Akash went to the Government Hospital, Panipat where my son Vikas told us about the above mentioned fight. The doctors at Govt. Hospital, Panipat referred my son Vikas to PGI Rohtak due to serious injuries. My son died due to the above mentioned injuries. Please take legal action against the above mentioned accused. Sd/- Shishipal Rishipal S/o Mohanlal M.No. 8053612707." 4.

The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.

5.

The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. 6.

It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:

"That the role of the petitioner is that his name surfaced in the case from the disclosure statement of the co-accused Ankush, Annexure R-1. Moreover, the CCTV footage of the place of occurrence also revealed that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of murder of deceased Vikas and he was involved with the co-accused persons. The petitioner was armed with gandasi on the spot and he had caused various injuries to the deceased by forming unlawful assembly with the other accused persons."

REASONING:

7.

Allegations against the petitioner are that he was actively involved in the murder the deceased Vikas and it clearly reveals from the CCTV footage that petitioner was present at the spot and was also involved in the commission of offence.

8.

A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points towards the petitioner's involvement and does not make out a case for anticipatory bail. The impact of crime would also not justify anticipatory bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so. 9.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 10.

Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 01.04.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:

No.