Sandeep v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: 08.11.2024
Pronounced on: 19.11.2024 Sandeep
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. Samay Singh Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Kadian, Advocate for the complainant.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 14.10.2023 Loharu, Distt.
302, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC Bhiwani, Haryana 1.
The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, seeking regular bail. 2.
In paragraph 14 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3.
The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:
"2. That the brief facts of the case are that complainant Mahender has made his statement to the police that on 14.10.2023 at about 7.00 a.m. he along with RamKishan, mother Jamna, Leela Ram were picking the cotton. They have joint khatas of land and have partitioned their land in family partition. All of sudden Vikas, Sumit, Ravinder, ChanderBhan, ChanderBhan's brother-in-law and Ramesh son of Banwari came and attacked upon them. Chander Bhan gave a blow with iron pipe on the head of Ram Kishan, Vikas gave a blow on the head of Mahender, Sumit gave a blow with iron pipe on the arm of complainant's mother. Ram Kishan became unconscious. 2-3 other relatives were also accompanied with them. On hearing the noise, neighbored working in field came at the spot, otherwise they would kill them and while leaving the spot the accused threatened to kill them. Thereafter the complainant arranged
private vehicle and got them admitted at CHC Loharu from where the injured were referred to GH, Bhiwani where the medico-legal examination of complainant, Ram Kishan and his mother Jamna was conducted by doctors. Ram Kishan was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. They were having danger to their life at the hands of Vikas, ChanderBhan, Sumit, Ravinder, Ramesh, residents of Damkora. On the basis of the statement of complainant present FIR was registered initially under Section 148, 149, 323, 506 IPC at Police Station Loharu and subsequently offence under Section 302 IPC was added."
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.
5.
The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. 6.
It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:
"7. During investigation on dated 21.11.2023 opinion was taken from the Doctor regarding the injury of the deceased. During investigation on dated 10.12.2023 Lila Ram son of Sh. Hari Singh produced a Pen drive along with 65-B certificate and the same was taken in police possession vide memo and the witnesses put their signatures on it. As per observation memo Sandeep son of Suresh was bearing black paint and white shirt and he was having mobile in his hand. Attar s/o Rameshwar was wearing undershirt and paint, ChanderBhan son of Rameshwar was having iron pipe in his hand and he was wearing white pajama-kurta. Vikash son of ChanderBhan was wearing Khakhi paint and blue T-shirt, Ramesh son of Banwari was wearing pink shirt and grey color paint and he was having stick (danda) in his hand.
Sushil wife of Suresh was empty hand and she was wearing red color dupatta and standing behind the statue and in 30 second vedio Ramesh son of Banwari was having bottle and stick (dunda) in his right hand. Sandeep son of Suresh was wearing white shirt and black paint and he was having iron pipe in his hand. Vikash son of ChanderBhan was wearing Army color lower and blue t-shirt and was having stick (danda) and Ax in his hand. Chanderbhan son of Rameshawar was wearing white sky blue Kurta and Pajama and he was having wooden stick (danda) in his hand. Murti wife of ChanderBhan was wearing pink suit and was having stick(danda) in her hand. Attar son Rameshwar was wearing under-shirt and pent and was empty hand and he was speaking loudly. During investigation on dated 12-12-2023 statements of the family members of the deceased were recorded.
On dated 26-122023 the neighbourers of the deceased joined the investigation. During investigation on dated 4.1.2024 present petitioner Murti and accused Kavita joined the investigation and they were arrested as per law after finding cogent evidence against them and during investigation the present petitioner Murti and accused Kavita suffered their disclosure statements and admitted their guilt of commission of the offence and the present petitioner Murti and accused Kavita and the witnesses put their signatures on it.
Murti got recovered one stick (danda) and the same was taken in possession vide recovery memo and the present petitioner and witnesses put their signatures on it. After that they were produced before the Ld. Court and they were sent to jail by the order of the Ld. Court. Copy of disclosure statement of accused Murti is Annexed as Annexure R-2. x x x x x
13. That in the present case, the present petitioner has been implicated for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The present petitioner has acted in prosecution of the common object. The present petitioner has not been specifically named in the present FIR. However, the presence of petitioner along with Lathi and carrying phone in his hand has been seen as per observation memo regarding video recording. The allegations leveled against the petitioner are that he being member of unlawful assembly and having a common object had attacked upon the complainant party. The petitioner after his arrest had suffered his disclosure statements and also demarcated the place of occurrences. During the occurrence Ram Kishan suffered a grievous injury with fracture on his head and due to injuries he was succumbed. The complainant Mahender has also suffered three injuries on the vital part. In this way the present petitioners are not entitled to get any relief prayed for.
7.
A perusal of the reply reveals that no injury was attributed to the petitioner. Further, the accused were explicitly named in FIR, wherein the petitioner was not named. Given the quality of evidence coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability of further pre-trial incarceration at this stage. 8.
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. 9.
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. 10.
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. 11.
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) 12.
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.
13.
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 be at liberty to cancel this bail. 14.
Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 15.
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. 16.
Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 19.11.2024 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:
No.