Shishpal v. State Of Haryana
110+227
!"
#$%$!&'
() *)
SHISHPAL )) $ $!& +
,%) STATE OF HARYANA
)) %-!&. & '
/0 ) 1
1 0
Present:
Mr. Manoj Tanwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana.
...
1 0
)
+ 3 1.
The instant petition has been filed on 22.07.2024 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for grant of regular bail. As per the judgment rendered by this Court titled '
! !"# ! !"$%% &' ", the instant petition is not maintainable under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973. However, keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case especially that the instant petition pertains to regular bail, the instant petition is directed to be considered as a petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Present petition has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.437 dated 23.06.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 376, 3768B and 506 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Thanesar, Kurukshetra.
2.
The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out by the petitioner in the present petition) is as follows:8
"
!
"
#
$ " % & '
( )*
# '
($ $+ , '
(& )*
'-
#
' & .
(
.
- (& )
( *
# "
#$ #
"
# /0 1 02 23 '
(
4 $
# +
,
- # !$ '
#
5 #$
6 # ('
)*
$
#$
+
$ ) /
3
#
# +
7
# $
0 +
(.
($
#
( (5 6 2
+
#
#(
"
$
8 $
#
#
#
$$
9$ # $
9 : (
# ( !
2 +
'*
*
#
"
#$
$
+
"
# $
$
$ *
#
"
5
*
$ $
+
"$ $
(
* $
* ; "
#
# #*
($
"
#
( * $
"
9
"
# $(! * $
( $
$ #
#
5#
# #
(
<
# ; " 9
"
#$
5 #$
# ( ()*
/
,
&
3 1 +
"
< = ()*
$
&
#
"
$
5 #$
6 # ( )*
# (
# " 7 .
( $
$
0 +
;
< = ( )* 1
9 "
(
( $
4
+
(
# +
#
$ *
$ # #
7 ($
#
(
( $ *
+
(
*
+
#
+
# +
;
9 #
+(!4
*
#
"
*
#
" '
#
*
-
"
* #
> 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 21.08.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that out of total 21 cited prosecution witnesses 5 have been examined and 4 already stand given up. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that allegations of rape against the petitioner are false as divorce had already been granted between the petitioner and victim & the victim, in order to harass the petitioner, has got the FIR in question lodged against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner was granted the concession of regular bail on 12.07.2023 by ld. ACJM, Kurukshetra, since, at that time, the offences invoked against the petitioner were only under Sections 323/3768B/506 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that later on offence under
Section 376 of IPC was added against the petitioner and thereafter he was taken into custody on 21.08.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that from 12.07.2023 (when the petitioner was granted regular bail by ld. ACJM, Kurukshetra) and uptil 21.08.2023 (when the petitioner was taken into custody) there is no allegation against the petitioner for having misused the concession of regular bail extended to him. Thus, 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.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
6.
The petitioner was arrested on 21.08.2023 whereinafter investigation was carried out & challan was presented on 06.11.2023. Total 21 prosecution witnesses have been cited out of which it is the conceded case of the parties that 5 stand examined and 4 already stand given up. Further, it is not in dispute that all private prosecution witnesses stand examined. The rival contention of the learned counsel for the parties; as to whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question so as to harass him4 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 remaining prosecution evidence. The first bail petition preferred by the petitioner was decided vide order dated 12.03.2024 which reads as under:
?
<
(
#
#
* $
$
#
& $
#
/3(
(
> It is indubitable that after the withdrawal of the first bail petition before this Court, the petitioner has suffered about 5 months more incarceration. Further, all the private witnesses have either been examined or given up after passing of the above said order dated 12.03.2024 by this Court. As per the custody certificate dated 24.08.2024 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01 year and 03 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.
7.
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:8 (i) The petitioner shall not mis8use 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 cell8phone 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. () *)
1 0 @
)
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes No Whether reportable Yes No