Deepak @ Jaat v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 01.12.2025 Deepak @ Jaat ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .......Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ *****

Present:

Mr. Sumit Saddi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.168, dated 01.03.2023, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Suraj Kund, District Faridabad, Haryana.

2.

Succinctly, the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Sushil Kumar son of late Bagwati Parsad. It was alleged that on 27.02.2023, at about 10.00 A.M., he received a call from one Kishore that a quarrel had taken place amongst the labourers and out of them Vinod, Deepak (petitioner), Bijender Kumar and Devender @ Kala had given beatings to an unknown labourer. On enquiry, he came to know that said unknown labourer had committed theft of Rs.6000/- and a mobile phone due to which quarrel took place. The complainant asked Deepak (petitioner) to take to said laborer for treatment.

-2Thereafter, on 01.03.2023 he came to know that said Deepak @ Jat (petitioner), Bajinder, Vinod and Devender @ Kala instead of taking that labourer for treatment had thrown him in the bushes of Anandvan Stone Crusher. He alleged that said Deepak @ Jat (petitioner), Bajinder, Vinod and Devender @ Kala had committed murder of unknown labourer. On the basis of the complaint, present FIR was registered and the investigation commenced. The petitioner was arrested on 05.03.2023. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad praying for the grant of regular bail, however, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 18.11.2024. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for grant of regular bail. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest i.e. 05.03.2023. He, at the outset, prays for the grant of bail to the petitioner on the basis of parity with that of the co-accused, namely, Sourabh @ Sunny, Devender Singh @ Kalu and Vinod Kumar @ Chinku. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the orders dated 27.08.2024, 27.09.2024 and 03.04.2025, respectively, passed in CRM-M No.15829 of 2024, CRM-M No.23638 of 2024 and CRM-M No.226 of 2025, whereby, co-accused, namely, Sourabh @ Sunny, Devender Singh @ Kalu and Vinod Kumar @ Chinku have been granted regular bail by this Court. He has submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. He has submitted that on the basis of the parity,

-3the petitioner deserves to be granted bail as the case of the petitioner is similar to that of the said co-accused, who have already been granted bail. 4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, however, he has endorsed the factum of grant of bail to the co-accused of the petitioner as stated above and has not denied that the petitioner is at par with the co-accused, namely, Sourabh @ Sunny, Devender Singh @ Kalu and Vinod Kumar @ Chinku. He has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court, which is taken on record.

5.

Heard.

6.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest, i.e. 05.03.2023. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 02 years, 08 months and 24 days as on 28.11.2025. It further reflects that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Coaccused of the petitioner, namely, Sourabh @ Sunny, Devender Singh @ Kalu and Vinod Kumar @ Chinku have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 27.08.2024, 27.09.2024 and 03.04.2025, respectively. Needless to say that every accused has the right of speedy trial. 7.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath Bhattacharya @ Asim Harinath Bhattacharya @ Aseem Kumar Bhattacharya Vs. National Investigation Agency, 2022(1) SCC 695 has held as under:

"Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period

-4may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. At the same time, timely delivery of justice is part of human rights and denial of speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the administration of justice."

8.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision dated 03.07.2024 in 'Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024', has held that howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has the right to speedy trial under the Constitution of India.

9.

The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. The trial of the case will take sufficient long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on parity.

10.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 01.12.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether Speaking/Reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No