High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/29434/2024allowed

Hasamdeen v. State Of Haryana

2024-09-09Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel6 pages

!$%&%"'(

) ) HASAMDEEN )) ! % %"'!*

+&) STATE OF HARYANA

))!&,"'-!'

( .

/ ) 0

0 /

Present:

Mr. D.S. Matya, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana.

...

0 /

)

*2 1.

Present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0264 dated 23.11.2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 4981A, 328, 506 and 34 of IPC, 1860 (During investigation Section 328 deleted and added on charge) at Police Station Nagina, District Nuh. 2.

The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out by the petitioner in the present petition) is as follows:1 "

!"#

$ #

" " %

&# "

#$) "

* " "

" " *

" + $ " -"

" ""

" %

&# "

"" ./)01).0//) "

*2 (30"/0/000 " *# +4 ""

*5 .""

*+#

"""6 ( *

)""

+ "

#+# "#+ *+

*+ " " +

+"* ++1+ (" "

" "" ( ' ( + + * " ("

+ +) "#

"# ("" " #

+ +

" " * "

) "/ +"

7" " # +$ "

) "" /89//9.0/8 "

" * # " ""

+ "

+ # +"+"" *

# +"+" "(

("* "

" + # +

# + " (

# " ):+" " "#

" + (""

" " * . 4, , 5 + # + ""(

"# # "

" "

( "* " +#

* * ""600 : +" "

" " #

+" + # + " + #4""*5 +

"( #+ " +#

"+ " "+ + * & "( #"

" " ," "

" "#

#""""* "" (

);"" (

7" "

" "" ( "

""#" +*

" + "

" *

""*

" " +#

"," " +" + *

##(

""+ "

" " ""

"$(" " + " +

" "( " #

"".0)//).0/8 "#"

" :"

"/ "

" + "

# + (

") -"

" "

")"9 "

" %

8</./.=/13)> 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was initially taken into custody on 23.08.2020 and was granted bail on the same date i.e. 23.08.2020 since the offences invoked against the petitioner at that time were under Sections 323/342/4981A/506 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that thereafter the learned trial Court had framed charges against the petitioner as also co1accused on 24.05.2024 which included charges under Section 328 of IPC as well & hence the petitioner was taken into custody on this count. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the offence of Section 328 of IPC is not made out against the petitioner in the factual matrix of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that earlier there was an opinion rendered by the ADA (Assistant District Attorney) on 09.04.2021 which reflected that no offence under Section 328 of IPC is made out against the petitioner. Thus, the regular bail is prayed for. 4.

Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. 5.

Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of regular bail on the ground that the allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature & hence he ought not to be granted the concession of regular bail. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that repeated requests were made by the complainant1side to senior officer for conducting the inquiry in the fair manner but the same was

not done & hence the petitioner was not challaned for offence under Section 328 of IPC at earlier. Learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that the MLR as also FSL brought on record clearly indicate the complicity of the petitioner in the offence under Section 328 of IPC as well. 6.

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

The petitioner was initially arrested on 23.08.2020 and was released on bail on the same date. Thereafter, the petitioner has been taken into custody on 24.05.2024 primarily on account of offence under Section 328 of IPC having been invoked against the petitioner by the learned trial Court at the time of framing of charges. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not misused the concession of regular bail earlier extended to him from 28.03.2020 till 24.05.2024. The rival contention of the learned counsel for the parties; as to whether the offence of Section 328 of IPC is made out against the petitioner or not3 shall be gone into during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial.

Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. As per the custody certificate dated 06.09.2024 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 03 months and 13 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case. Suffice to say further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8.

In view of totality of factual matrix of the present case, the instant petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular

bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:1 (i) The petitioner shall not mis1use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell1phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 9.

In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

10.

Ordered accordingly.

11.

Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

12.

Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.

) )

0 / !

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes No Whether reportable Yes No