Pankaj v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 08.07.2025

Pronounced on: 29.07.2025 Pankaj

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Harpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 21.03.2022 Sector 5, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 506 Panchkula IPC 1.

The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above came before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, seeking regular bail. 2.

In paragraph 17 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3.

The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:

" That the brief facts of the case are that on the complaint moved by the complainant Amrinder Singh son of Tejinder Singh. It is averred in the complaint that on dated 18.03.2022 at about 10:30 PM, complainant along with his friend Jatin and two female friends namely Kajal and Damini visited Hotel Swiss Lounge situated at Sector 5 Panchkula. There, accused Pankaj, who was known to Damini met them. It is further alleged that when complainant was coming back from there, Jatin caught hold of the hand of the Damini and after seeing that Pankaj got annoyed and a quarrel took place in between Pankaj and Jatin. Later, the complainant intervened in the matter. However, Pankaj called 5-6 other boys and they all assaulted them. He (complainant) was assaulted with a broken bottle on his neck and one boy gave blow of iron rod on the person of the complainant. One another boy hit him with brick from behind and another boy tried to run over his vehicle over the complainant. On these allegation present FIR has came into existence."

4.

The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. Counsel further submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Special Judge or Sessions Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection. 5.

The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. She further submits that petitioner was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 04.05.2022 and after release, he attacked upon the complainant/victim, due to which, this Court cancelled his bail vide order dated 09.02.2023.

6.

It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:

"12. That the present petitioner and other co-accused has committed the grave offence by intentionally attacking on the complainant and others who suffers the "grievous injuries on the neck. The present petitioner has deliberately indulged in serious infringement of law resulting in registration of the present FIR. That the present petitioner might again indulged into similar offences affecting human body and property or pressurize the witnesses or cause disappearance of valuable evidence, thus may thwart hamper the course of justice. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed."

7.

Extract from the order dated 09.02.2025, are reproduced below:- "5. Counsel for the complainant submitted that although this court had granted bail to three accused but the complainant is extremely scared and he is feeling grave prejudice because of the grant of bail to respondent No.2-Pankaj. He further argued that they did not file any application for cancellation of bail granted to other accused and for this very reason they have filed the present petition for cancellation of bail to Pankaj for the reasons that he is apprehending danger to his life, the complainant had to shift his city and moved to different city. Furthermore complainant's counsel further argued that the complainant was a budding singer and because of the injuries on neck inflicted by Pankaj by a broken bottle, his vocal cord have been damaged and his career has been ruined. He also drew attention of this Court to medical record to corroborate the same." REASONING 8.

There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction

sentencing.

9.

Per the custody certificate dated 07.07.2025, the petitioner's total custody in this FIR is 02 years, 02 months & 28 days.

10.

Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. 11.

Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. 12.

Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 13.

While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:

1.

AADHAR number 2.

Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

3.

Mobile number (If available) 4.

E-Mail id (If available) 14.

This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms. 15.

The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.

16.

Till the completion of the trial, the petitioner shall not contact, call, text, message, remark, stare, stalk, make any gestures or express any unusual or inappropriate, verbal or otherwise objectionable behavior towards the victim and victim's family, either physically, or through phone call or any other social media, through any other mode, nor shall unnecessarily roam around the victim's home. 17.

Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, petitioner shall not enter in the vicinity where victim is residing and shall remain at

a distance of 10 km from his residence until the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial are recorded. This Court is imposing this condition to rule out any attempt by the accused to incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the victim. Reference be made to Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna Bhatt v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.

18.

Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the victim, and their family members, as well as the members of society, and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearm(s). [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction].

Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days from release from prison and inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense. 19.

The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that "The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed."

20.

It is clarified that if the petitioner violates any bail condition, the State and/or the victim may file an application for bail cancellation before the trial court, which shall be competent to cancel the bail or add more conditions. Furthermore, if the petitioner moves for deletion or dilution of any bail conditions, the trial court is empowered to do so. 21.

The significant consideration for granting bail is that the Court aims to give the petitioner another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citizen. To ensure that the petitioner also abides by the assurance made on the petitioner's behalf by not repeating the offence or indulging in any crime, it shall be

desirable to impose the following additional condition. 22.

This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail. 23.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 24.

A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 25.

Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 29.07.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:

No.