Sajjan v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 19.05.2025 Sajjan

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Bhisham Kumar Majoka, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen K. Sheoran, D.A.G., Haryana.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 31.07.2020 Badshapur, District 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 341, Gurugram 342, 427 IPC (Sections 201, 364, 186, 353 IPC added later on) 1.

The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above came before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

2.

In paragraph 13 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3.

The facts and allegations are being taken from translated version of FIR, which reads as follows:

"It is humbly stated that I Lukman son of Bilal caste Muslim resident of P.S Nuh District Mewat aged 25 years that 1 am resident of abovementioned address and I am working as a driver that today on 31.7.2020 I was going to mosque Gurugram in vehicle Pickup no. HR-382-6280 having the meat of buffalo from the village of Ghaseda when, I reached on the red light of sector 5-6 then 10/15 persons came from my back side and compelled him to stop my vehicle that I didn't stop the vehicle and while running away from my vehicle, those boys surrounded me after reaching the truck market near Masjid Gurugram and the glasses of my vehicle were broken and

after beating me with the stick/danda they were took me back Shona alongwith the vehicle after reached on the jail turn Badshapur they were beaten me. Later, the police reached at the spot released me from them the glasses of the government vehicle were also broken by them that the police admitted me in G.H.SEC.10 for my treatment that now you are come here for recorded of my statement I have written and heard my statement, it is correct. Sd/-Lukman." 4.

The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. He further seeks bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused who have already been granted bail by this Court. 5.

The State's counsel opposes bail based on instructions. REASONING:

6.

Earlier, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court. State has challenged the said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court who directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court and the petitioner surrendered on 15.02.2025 and since then he is in custody.

7.

There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing.

8.

Per paragraph 10 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 15.02.2025. Per the custody certificate dated 16.05.2025, the petitioner's total custody in this FIR is 03 months and 02 days.

9.

Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, co-accused already granted bail and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage.

10.

The investigation indicates that the petitioner is not the main accused, so the petitioner's bail shall not be treated as a precedent for granting bail to the other coaccused with a higher role. 11.

Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

12.

Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 13.

While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:

1.

AADHAR number 2.

Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

3.

Mobile number (If available) 4.

E-Mail id (If available) 14.

This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms. 15.

The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.

16.

It is clarified that if the petitioner violates any bail condition, the State and/or the victim may file an application for bail cancellation before the trial court, which shall be competent to cancel the bail or add more conditions. Furthermore, if the petitioner moves for deletion or dilution of any bail conditions, the trial court is empowered to do so. 17.

This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall have the liberty to cancel this bail. 18.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 19.

A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.

20.

Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 19.05.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:

No.