Suraj Jha v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 10.01.2023 Suraj Jha ......... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ......... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:

Mr.Suresh Ahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana.

**** JAGMOHAN BANSAL , J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner, through instant petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is seeking regular bail in FIR No. 124 dated 22.03.2021 under Sections 323, 342, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012, registered at Police Station D.L.F. Phase-1, Gurugram. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is in custody since 22.03.2021. The prosecutrix was subjected to DNA profile which matches with co-accused Hari Om and not the petitioner. The prosecutrix even at the time of commission of alleged offence was major. The prosecutrix has already been examined as well as cross-examined. In the cross-examination, she has declared all the accused innocent and stated that she was subjected to sign various papers by the police officers. The petitioner is not involved in any other offence. The petitioner has been wrongly implicated in the commission of alleged offence. The petitioner is permanent resident of District Gurugram and

-2staying with family members. The petitioner has deep roots in the society. There is no possibility of flee from justice. 3.

Learned State Counsel submits that police report has already been filed and charges stand framed. She further submits that there are 18 prosecution witnesses and till date, 06 have been examined. The next date before the trial Court is 21.01.2023. The petitioner is involved in the commission of grave offence, thus, no leniency is warranted and release of petitioner would hamper the trial.

4.

A two judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed: "6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other."

5.

Intent of arrest and reason of denial of bail is to: i) Secure the appearance of the accused at the time of trial;

ii) Allay possibility of repeating of offence &

-3jeopardising own life on account of grim prospect of being convicted;

iii) Avoid possibility of tampering of evidence and security of witnesses who may be pressurised or maltreated.

6.

A person who seeks to be liberated must take judgment and serve sentence in the event of his conviction. The nature of the crime charged, severity of punishment prescribed, prime facie available evidences, history & background of the accused may indicate that any amount of bond and surety is not going to secure presence of accused, at the time of conviction. Detention or arrest not only deprives a person from his fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed by article 21 but also freedom guaranteed by article 19(1) of our Constitution. 7.

Keeping in mind:

i) The Petitioner is in custody since 22.03.2021; ii) Police report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. stands filed, charges stand framed;

iii) There are 18 prosecution witnesses and till date, only 06 have been examined, thus, there is abysmally low possibility of conclusion of trial in near future;

iv) The prosecutrix is major and she has already been examined as well as cross-examined;

v) The prosecutrix has not supported case of the prosecution and miserably demolished case of the prosecution; vi) Twin stringent conditions of bail prescribed under special statutes like PMLA, UAPA, NDPS Act, Companies Act are

-4not applicable in the case in hand;

vii) The Petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case; viii) The Petitioner is permanent resident of District Gurugram and staying with family members;

ix) Prosecution has not led any convincing/plausible documentary or oral evidence indicating possibility of Petitioner being flee from justice or tempering the evidences or winning over/threatening the witnesses;

this Court is of the considered opinion that present petition deserves to allowed and accordingly allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to conditions as may be imposed by trial Court/illaqa/Duty Magistrate concerned.

( JAGMOHAN BANSAL ) JUDGE 10.01.2023 anju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No