Ravi Kumar v. State Of Haryana
!"
#$
"%&'&#() **
RAVI KUMAR ** "!&!&#("+ ,'* STATE OF HARYANA
**"'-#(."(!
) / 0 * 1
1 0
Present:
Mr. Kuldeep Singh Siwach, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Mahima Yashpal, DAG, Haryana ...
1 0
* + 3 1.
Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.70 dated 28.06.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 313, 323, 34, 3546A, 406, 4986A and 506 of IPC at Police Station Nizampur, District Mahendergarh.
2.
The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out by the petitioner in the present petition) is as follows:6 "
!
"#$ % & ' "( %& ) %& '
*( + * , - '
*(* %& . % '"
*( %& /$ '
*(
%& 0 % & ! 1 2 " '
!
(31$ %4% + * 1 $* 5 # 2
* $ % & "
$ & 0 % &
1 2 " ) *
*
!"
"* " " " ! " ! "
" "
" $)6
2 70 ! ! % ! "
8"
"- *
"* "#$ % & #9
#) )6))
% &
"
" "" ""*!
" " "
"
"
$-6 * !
"*! "* . *
*
* " " ! "
"
% ""
" ! "
: " %
*! "##
" ! "
"
%
" "
"# " ;
"!
;;1 0 ! #6 " ;; #6 ! " !
2!
*
*
* ""
* " * " % "
"
" " "
" * " ! ! %
"
"# " *
" ") "-
"
"
"#! " " "
" " " ". "/ "
%!* !/ )<#))6))* " ! !
" "
" " * "%!
*
* 3 #.6#)6)- *
*8 " 8
* " "
%
* *
8
* * ! " 8 " ""
* * " !
" "
% " " * " " * "
!* " * 8
* " * " "
* "
*
! " ! " " 5 " ;" ! !* " = "
" ! !
*
"% "% )# 6# )6)- ")) 6# )6)-
" " "
+ %
* " ! "
! * "= "
* "
* "# * 1 >
1 % "#* "* " " " "
%! " ! " " ! * " % " ! " ! "*!
" " "#* "
* "* " ! "
"*
"* " "! %
7*
* "
8
* "
** " %!" !
" " + % *
"* 9 8
*$ *
0 8
1 )# 6/ )6)- " *
"
"$ ! " ""*
" "
%
"" ! ! * !
* * %"*
"* = " "! " "!
* " " ! ! ""* ** * ** ! "* ! = "
* "
*! " ""
* "
"% " "$ " " ""* < )) 6<
)6)- " "
"
" "
""
" %
* ""
* )- 6< )6)- % " " * " "# "!" "#"
" , * " " "# " %
"$ )> 6< )6)- * ". "/ )9
6< )6)-! + * "3 *
"#= " * *
" " " %
"
!
* "
%
" "3" "
% "! * " % " * %
* " " " "
" 8 * " * " "
$* )9 6< )6)-* * "
" * " " " " *" * ! " * % "! " " " ! " " * " % "
*! "! %!* " "
*8 ""
" % " " " " !* "
* " "
#6 6- #6 )6)- " "! " ""*! "*
"!
" " " % *!% " " * " % ! " * "" ! * 8 ! " "% " " %
""
" #/ ## )6)- 8
* 2 % $ % & ?
""
0 4*
$ % & $
* "* ! 7
" " "5 " * " " ""*! * ""
" " " "*!" " !* * "* " " " %"* 8 "** ! " " !
* " * ! ).
#) )6)- %
"
"
" " ! " * *
"*!" " " " " %
"
"! "!
5 "
% "
" " " " "*! " "*! :
* " " 1 )>#))6)- 2
$ % & "
$ & 0 % &
1 2 " 2 9)</##-966#-91 @1#/6/)6).A 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the genesis of the FIR in question is actually the matrimonial discord between the petitioner and the victim6wife; the aggravated allegations of Section 313 of IPC have been made so as to lend severity to the FIR in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner is in custody since 10.10.2024 and culmination of the investigation will take its own time. Learned counsel has also argued that there is no material available
with the prosecution, till date, to invoke the offence under Section 313 of IPC against the petitioner. Thus, the regular bail is prayed for. 4.
Learned State counsel along with Investigating Officer6ASI Rajwanti (with case diary) has opposed the present petition arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.
5.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
6.
The petitioner was arrested on 10.10.2024 and the matter is still under investigation. The prime allegations against the petitioner are of dowry harassment etc. Although the offence of Section 313 of IPC is also invoked against the petitioner, but the same would be a matter of investigation; as to whether any supporting material for establishing this offence is available or not. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the investigation/trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the course of investigation/Court proceedings. As per the custody certificate dated 08.11.2024 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 28 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case. Suffice to say further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7.
In view of totality of factual matrix of the present case, the instant petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld.
concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:6 (i) The petitioner shall not mis6use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell6phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8.
In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
9.
Ordered accordingly.
10.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
11.
Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. **
1 0 B
&
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes No Whether reportable Yes No