Mammu Alias Bhambu v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION :- 10.07.2024 Mamu alias Bhambu

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Dheeraj Narula, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana.

*** SUMEET GOEL , J.

(Oral) 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.302 dated 06.07.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147,149,323,341,506 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 148,307,325,354-B of IPC (added later on) at Police Station Sirsa Sadar, District Sirsa.

2.

The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- "Statement of Paramjeet Kaur wife of Tarsem Singh, caste Majbi Sikh, resident of village Bhamboor, aged about 45 years, Mobile No. 98123 92850. Stated that, I am residing at the aforementioned address and a household lady. On 05.07.2023 at about 9 O'clock my brother-in-law (Devar) Kripal Singh has gone to bring grocery items from the Grocery Shop in the village. Mundri son of Devi Lai, Angrej Singh son of Ruldu Ram, Balraj son of Chinder Pal, Tony son of chadta Singh, Jinder son of Miyan, Mammu son of Chinda Singh, Kakka son

of Jamail Singh, Mandu son of Kamail Singh, Ranjit son of Jagdish Kamboj and Baljeet son of Hardev Singh all residents of Bhamboor armed with dandas, lathis and sharp edged weapon were already present on the shop of Hanshu. They had come in the car of Ranjit Kamboj. When my brother-in-law (Devar) Kripal Singh reached near the shop of Hansu, all ofthem started abusing him and when my brother-in-law (Devar) started moving back to his house, they obstructed the passage of my borther-lathi, danda and sharp edged weapons. On hearing the noise, I and my son Manohar son of Tarsem Singh went to rescue Kripal Singh then all of them also caused injuries to my son Manohar with danda and sharp edged weapons and gave fist and slaps to me. Mandu son of Karnail Singh was carrying a pistol which was seen by me.

When I raised alarm, several people of the village reached at the spot. Deepa son of Kaur Singh also gave slaps to me. All the assailants, on seeing several people of the village reaching at the spot, fled away from the spot alongwith their respective weapons and while going they extended threats to kill us on the next available opportunity. After arranging the conveyance, I along with my family members shifted my brother-in-law (Devar) Kripal Singh and my son Manohar to Govt. Hospital, Sirsa where the doctor, after giving first aid to my brother-inlaw (Devar) and my son, issued their MLRS from where they were referred to higher centre. Now my brother-in-law (Devar) Kripal Singh and my son Manohar have been admitted in City Health Care Hospital, Sirsa. Both are unconscious. You have come to the hospital.

I have got my statement recorded to you. I have heard it and the same is correct. I have got my statement recorded in the presence of Tejvinder Singh. Action be taken against all of them. RTI Paramjeet Kaur."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 08.09.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that total 28 prosecution witnesses have been cited out of which none

has been examined till date and hence culmination of trial will take a long time. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that allegations against the petitioner, at the most, are that he was also part of the unlawful assembly. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner is a sole bread winner of the family and, therefore, if he continues to remain in custody it may cause harmful effects on the family of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, learned counsel has prayed for grant of regular bail.

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. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 09.07.2024 in Court, which is taken on record.

5.

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

6.

The petitioner was arrested on 08.09.2023 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 11.10.2023. Total 28 prosecution witnesses have been cited and culmination of the trial will take its own time. The rival contention of learned counsel for the parties; as to the specific role attributed to the petitioner and as to whether he was part of the unlawful assembly; 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 custody certificate dated 09.07.2024 filed by learned State counsel, the

petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than 10 months & 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 case. 7.

In view of above, the present 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:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use 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 cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

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

8.

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.

9.

Ordered accordingly.

10.

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

11.

Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 10.07.2024 P.Singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No