Hardeep Kumar @ Bheema v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 23.08.2023

Pronounced on: 14.09.2023 Hardeep Kumar @ Bheema ...PeƟƟoner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Yagsimant AƩri, Advocate, for the peƟƟoner.

Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police StaƟon SecƟons 10.12.2020 City Barnala, District Barnala 302, 201, 120-B, 506 IPC 1.

The peƟƟoner incarcerated on the allegaƟons of murder, has come up before this Court under SecƟon 439 CrPC seeking bail.

2.

Counsel for the peƟƟoner submits that the prosecuƟon evidence is being delayed on one pretext or the other. He further submits that the peƟƟoner has 80% disability. He further contends that pre-trial incarceraƟon would cause an irreversible injusƟce to the peƟƟoner and family and prayed for grant of bail. 3.

While opposing the bail, the State contends that the trial is at an advanced stage, and any observaƟon made by this court might impact its outcome. He further submits that State is making every efforts to brought witnesses before the trial Court and due to defence lackadaisical approach trial is delayed. 4.

That as per the prosecuƟon version that accused/applicants along-with their coaccused persons with the common intenƟon has caused the death of Sunny Kumar and then as per the disclosure statement on 10.12.2020 so made by Ravi Kumar accused/non-applicant that dead body, which was cut into pieces, was recovered in presence of ExecuƟve Magistrate, Barnala and enƟre recovery proceedings were videographed. He made another disclosure statement on 15.12.2020 and got recovered motorcycle allegedly used in the occurrence. During the course of invesƟgaƟon, mobile

phone of deceased Sunny Kumar was recovered from accused/non-applicant Kundan Parsad. That recovery of this mobile phone from accused/non-applicant and coupled with the fact that other belonging of deceased were also recovered from other coaccused persons. Another motorcycle was recovered from the possession of co-accused Rajneesh Kumar. During the invesƟgaƟon of accused/applicant Ram Partap alias Ram Parkash and at his instance one iron Daah was recovered from him on 13.12.2020. At the instance of accused/applicant Hardeep Kumar, one wallet of black colour was recovered from him at his instance on 15.12.2020. This wallet contained one Adhar Card bearing no. 4632-7922-1787 which is in the name of Sunny Kumar son of Anil Kumar, H.No. C150, Street no. 4, Sekha Road, Ward no. 10, Barnala. REASONING:

5.

Since three prosecuƟon witnesses have already been appeared and their examinaƟon-in-chief has already been recorded, as such, it shall be inappropriate for this Court to appreciate their evidence and if it does so, it might affect the case of prosecuƟon or the defence. There is no seƩled law that a person, who is 80% disable, cannot commit the murder. Once the peƟƟoner takes up the plea of disability, the burden under SecƟon 106 of Indian Evidence Act shiŌ upon him to explain that why his disability in capaciated him from commiƫng the alleged crime. 6.

Given above, the peƟƟoner fails to make a case for bail. 7.

Any observaƟon made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. The peƟƟon is dismissed. All pending applicaƟons, if any, stand closed. However, considering the peƟƟoner's right to speedy trial coupled with the pre-trial incarceraƟon, this court requests the concerned trial court to make all endeavours to conclude the trial by Jan. 31, 2024, of which the prosecuƟon evidence be completed by Nov. 30, 2023, and latest by Dec. 31, 2023, and the remaining Ɵme to provide an opportunity to the accused to lead defence evidence, if so desired, and to conclude its hearing. To meet the deadline, an endeavour be made to speed up the process for service and to pass the necessary direcƟons in this regard.

It is clarified that if expediƟng this trial disturbs the docket of the concerned court, then a balance be struck, and if, on this account, any delay happens, then an extension can be sought by menƟoning such reasons. It is clarified that this order speeding up the trial is subject to the condiƟon that neither the peƟƟoner shall seek any adjournment nor try to use any tacƟcs to delay the trial.

further reference to this court. If any of the accused is on bail and fail(s) to aƩend the trial without any sufficient cause, then they be dealt with strictly but in accordance with law. It is clarified that if the trial is not concluded by the date menƟoned above, and if the delay is not aƩributable to the peƟƟoner, then the peƟƟoner may file an applicaƟon for bail before the trial court, which shall decide it expediƟously and consider the bail on the grounds of pre-trial custody, and all the previous orders of dismissal passed by the trial court or High Court shall not come in the way. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 14.09.2023 JyoƟ-II Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.