Jogender v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 30.11.2023 JOGENDER ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.110 dated 17.05.2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 IPC at Police Station Jhojhu Kalan, District Charkhi Dadri, Haryana. 2.

Status report by way of affidavit of Des Raj, HPS, DSP, Badhra Distt. Charkhi Dadri has been filed on behalf of respondent-State today in Court, which is taken on record. Copy supplied. 3.

The author of the FIR is Amit son of Sanjay who claimed as under :

  

     

         

                !   "

   

# $%  

 & '( )* +,       -.                        ,    /

$01%2122   $1311#4  & '( )*      



   5

6

        7   

  *  7     # 4   

      ,

 8 

   :7  7 4   

   :7   

8 

 4 

 ;  9 

 4

 +    4 7  4

 <    #      

     





      =  ##      

             7   #8  



 4   

 

  (  7 

 #

7    (  7  

       $>>.       ;    

 

   

 #?

4.

After investigation two of the accused namely Manjit @ Motla and Sanjeev were found to be innocent and the petitioner along with one Sudhir were challaned. In the application moved by prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the said Manjit @ Motla and Sanjeev who were initially granted clean chit by the investigating agency, stand summoned as additional accused and have been admitted to pre arrest bail. 5.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the fact that once co-accused have been admitted to pre-arrest bail, the petitioner shall also be entitled to regular bail another fact has come on record i.e. at the time of post-mortem of the deceased the doctors deferred to opine regarding cause of death till receiving the Forensic Chemical Examination Report and

now after receiving the FSL report the opinion as per the status report filed today by way of affidavit of Des Raj, HPS, DSP, Badhra Distt. Charkhi Dadri, before this Court is as under :

"injuries mentioned in PMR are sufficient to cause death in normal course of life. However, the said victim had consumed the ethyl alcohol in the strength of 86.25 mg%. The possibility of contribution toward the death by the said strength of the alcohol cannot be ruled out."

6.

He thus submits that the same injuries were earlier found to be insufficient to constitute opinion whereas now the same doctors have opined otherwise. He, however, submits that even the opinion that has now been presented before this Court is considered the same demolishes the case of the prosecution in toto as now doubt has arisen about the cause of death of the deceased which shall entail benefit to the present petitioner. He further submits that owing to the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. de novo trial has started and the custody of the petitioner is being prolonged as a punitive measure. 7.

Per contra, State Counsel submits that there is an old enmity between the families which is primary motive. Even the occurrence was captured in CCTV footage wherein two persons can be seen dragging the deceased from the tractor.

8.

Having heard rival contentions of counsel representing the parties and after carefully going through records of the case this Court finds

that the challan in the present case was filed on 23rd of August, 2022, charges were framed on 3rd of October, 2022 and despite passing of more than 1 year by now only one witness i.e. the complainant has been examined that too in part.

9.

In view of above, without commenting on the merits of the case, keeping in view the incarceration already suffered by the petitioner and the fact that the co-accused who have assigned the similar role also stand admitted to pre-arrest bail, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

10.

Needless to say that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. November 30, 2023 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No