Paramjit Alias Bhola v. State Of Haryana

2024:PHHC:043834

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-64672-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.04.2024 Paramjit @ Bhola

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

Present:

Ms. Neeru Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Section/s 13.07.2020 City Gohana, District Sonepat 148, 149, 302, 120-B, 34 IPC and 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of aforementioned FIR.

2.

The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Nawab, wherein it is alleged that on the day of occurrence, when his elder son Rakesh Boumer was working in the front portion of the house and he was inside the house, he heard the noise of a bullet being fired in the street. When the complainant went outside, he saw that his son was being shot at. It is alleged that the assailants after firing went away from the spot leaving his son Rakesh in a pool of blood, who died on account of said fire VIMAL KUMAR 2024.04.03 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-64672-2023 (O&M) -2arm injury. The complainant suspected that Palotra, who was confined in jail, had got his son murdered with the help of his companions. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is nowhere named in the FIR and came to be nominated on the basis of a disclosure statement made by co-accused. It has further been submitted that complainant Nawab and two other witnesses, namely, PW-2 Vikas and Ankit, while appearing in the witness-box, did not support the case of the prosecution and have resiled from their statements.

4.

The aforesaid position is not disputed by the learned State counsel. It has been informed by learned State counsel that the petitioner as on date has been behind bars since the last more than 3 years. 5.

Having regard to the long custody of the petitioner and the fact that the complainant himself has resiled from his statement, no useful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 02.04.2024 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL) Vimal JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No VIMAL KUMAR 2024.04.03 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document