Vinod Sharma Alias Ramakant v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22251-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.09.2022 VINOD SHARMA @ RAMAKANT ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Sanjeev Chopra, Advocate and Mr. Surendra Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, AAG Haryana **** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) Through this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case bearing FIR No.981 dated 15.09.2019, registered at Police Station Gurugram Sadar, under Sections 302, 323, 324 and 34 IPC. Status report by way of an affidavit dated 02.09.2022 of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sadar Gurugram, filed on behalf of the respondent-State, in the Court, is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case; that though the abovenamed FIR was registered on 15.09.2019, yet the petitioner surrendered himself on 02.07.2021 and since then he has been in custody and that coaccused, namely, Geeta, Gulshan and Shubham have since been granted the benefit of bail. He further submits that the petitioner was having a AMAN JAIN 2022.09.12 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-22251-2022 (O&M) -2live-in-relationship with Geeta and that the petitioner is biological father of Gulshan (the juvenile), who has inflicted a knife blow on the person of deceased, namely, Sanjeet.

On the other hand, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner submits that the petitioner had actively participated in the occurrence, inasmuch as, he had given a baton blow on the person of the deceased. He, however, does not dispute the custody period of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner remained absent from the investigating agency for a considerable period of about two years and does does not deserve any concession. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As per the contents of the FIR, a specific role and injury has been attributed to the petitioner on the person of Sanjeet, who ultimately succumbed to his injuries.

The petitioner was/is having a live-inrelationship with Geeta, whose son, namely, Gulshan, had inflicted a knife blow on the person of the deceased. As noticed above, the petitioner evaded the investigation for a period of about two years. Merely because the petitioner has been in custody since 02.07.2021, is no ground to grant him the concession of bail, keeping in view the seriousness and gravity of the offence.

In view of the above, no ground is made out to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Dismissed.

09.09.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No AMAN JAIN 2022.09.12 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment