Chetram v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:31.10.2025 CHETRAM

...Petitioner

Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA

...Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Badal Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amish Sharma, AAG, Punjab.

SANJAY VASHISTH , J.

(Oral) 1.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (now Section 483 of BNSS, 2023) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Chet Ram, aged 63 years 20.12.2024 103(1), 281, 125-A, 3(5), BNS Sadar, Dadri Charkhi Dadri 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegations in the FIR lodged by complainant Vipin, Sarpanch of village Ghikada, his minor son Pratik, a student of UKG in Green Midows School, Charkhi, was to be picked up by the school bus on the morning of the incident. The complainant's wife accompanied the children, including their daughter Lakshita, to the pick-up point, however, after the son boarded the bus, the driver, in a rash and negligent manner, drove the vehicle over the complainant's daughter, Lakshita, causing her serious injuries. Said occurrence was captured in the CCTV footage of the area. It is further

submitted that upon learning of the incident, the complainant by dialing phone called his friends, namely Dharambir @ Naveen s/o Virender Singh, Amit s/o Chand Ram, Sahil s/o Sunil, and a few others from villages Ghikada and Fatehgarh, to the school premises. The complainant and his companions are stated to have inquired from the school staff and teachers about the said occurrence. Proprietors of the school, Yogender and Suresh, also called some of their co-villagers to the spot. Among them, Bhattu and Kammi @ Karambir were purportedly armed with knives (Chhura), and Bhattu caught hold of Dharambir @ Naveen, while Karambir inflicted a knife blow on his right side, causing him to fall unconscious.

Thereafter, injured was taken to Oscar Hospital, Dadri, where he was referred to a higher medical centre due to the seriousness of his injuries. While being taken to Kainos Hospital, Rohtak, he succumbed to the injuries and was declared 'brought dead' by the doctors. Referring to the allegations, counsel for the petitioner argues that infact, petitioner is not directly involved in the incident, however, as per CCTV footage, he is alleged to be only present at the spot on being called by the proprietors of the school. However, no active role is attributed to him. He further submits that petitioner is stated to be inside jail since 21.12.2024 (10 months and 09 days), and has remained in custody since then. Petitioner is not even involved in any other criminal activity.

Therefore, submits that any longer incarceration of the petitioner inside jail would be of no meaningful purpose in law. Thus, prays for releasing on bail. 3.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Vishal Kumar, submits that as per the CCTV footage, the petitioner is seen present at the spot; however, he is not armed with any weapon. It is

further submitted that in fact, it was the petitioner who was driving the school bus at the time of morning incident. Upon a query from State counsel by the Court, it has been informed that the proprietors of the school, namely Yogender and Suresh, who had allegedly called the assailants to the school, have not even been arrayed as accused in the present case. Nevertheless, learned State counsel strongly opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

7.

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the objections raised by learned State counsel, and perused the material placed on record, including the status report. Perusal of the status report indicates that no specific role is attributed to the petitioner with respect to the commission of the alleged murder. Another fact which cannot be ignored is that the Investigating Officer appears to have selectively proceeded against certain individuals, who allegedly arrived at the scene, at the instance of the school proprietors and thereby have been challaned, whereas the proprietors of the school have not been arrayed as accused. As pointed out by learned State counsel, prima facie, the petitioner was driving the offending school bus in the morning and on inspection of CCTV footage of the incident, presence of petitioner though depicted, is yet to be determined during trial as to whether he had played any active role in the infliction of knife injuries by his coaccused Kammi @ Karambir 8.

Taking into account that the petitioner has been in custody for a period of more than four years, and considering that the trial has not even progressed, this Court is of the opinion that the continued incarceration of the petitioner would be unjustified. Personal liberty cannot be curtailed

indefinitely without substantial progress in the trial and proving of charges. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case.

Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

9.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

10.

Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

11.

Petition stands disposed of.

Misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 31.10.2025 kv Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No