Sunny Alias Dablu v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision: 29.7.2024 Sunny @ Dablu ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.

***** FIR No.

Dated Police Station Section/s 5.12.2020 Old Industrial, District Panipat 307 and 34 of Indian Penal Code & Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of the aforementioned FIR.

2.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Yogesh, wherein it is alleged that on 3.12.2020, when he was sitting in a rented room on the first floor of shop situated in Makhija Colony, Gohana Road alongwith his friend Sumit, then two young boys with muffled faces entered the room and started hurling abuses and raised an altercation with them. It is alleged that one of them tried to fire at him with a country made pistol, but he caught the said pistol with his

( 2 ) left hand. The assailants tried to fire at him and as a result the bullet pierced through the palm of his left hand and right knee. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is nowhere named in the FIR and has been nominated as an accused after about 11⁄2 years of lodging of the FIR on the basis of a disclosure statement allegedly made by the petitioner, when he was in custody in connection with some other case. It has been submitted that even as per the said disclosure statement it is the coaccused, who was having pistol and who had fired on the injured. Learned counsel submitted that apart from the disclosure statement there is no evidence worth credence to connect him with the alleged occurrence. 4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submitted that since the petitioner has himself confessed his guilt and has a chequered history having been involved in 2 other cases, his complicity is clearly evident. It has, however, been informed that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 10 months. It has also been informed that none out of the cited 29 PWs has been examined.

5.

This Court has considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 6.

Without commenting anything as regards merits of the case, but having regard to the custody of the petitioner i.e. about 10 months and the fact that conclusion of trial is likely to consume time as the trial has not even commenced till date and as many as 29 PWs have been cited, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. 7.

The instant petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the

( 3 ) satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

29.7.2024 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) Pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No