Rinku v. State Of Haryana

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 20.05.2024 RINKU ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

Mr. Parveen Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. A.K. Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.763 dated 27.11.2021 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, at P.S. Kharkhoda, Sonipat.

2.

Custody Certificate of the petitioner has been filed today in Court. The same is taken on record.

3.

FIR was registered on the information supplied by Bunti son of Satyavan who happens to be nephew of the deceased Satpal son of Ram Kishan who claimed that on 26th of November, 2021 he saw his uncle Ram Kishan in company of the present petitioner and thereafter on 27th of

-2November, 2021 body of the deceased was found in the morning. There are 8 injuries found on the body of the deceased. 4.

As per the prosecution the petitioner while in police custody suffered disclosure admitting his guilt. It is further claimed that pursuant to the disclosure made by the petitioner vehicle No.HR-69D-9553 as well as axe used by him to murder the deceased has been recovered. 5.

Counsel for the State however admits that there is no forensic evidence connecting the said axe or the vehicle to the crime. 6.

Petitioner is behind bars for more than 2 years, 5 months and 19 days. Material witnesses already stand examined. Thus, there can't be any apprehension that the petitioner shall tamper with the evidence and the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future 7.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through records of the case.

8.

Without commenting on the merits of the case, keeping in view the incarceration already suffered by the petitioner and the fact that the investigation already stands concluded and Challan stands presented, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

-39.

Needless to say that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. May 20, 2024 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No