Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sombir vs State Of Haryana on 1 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080947
209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-61592-2023
DATE OF DECISION: 01.07.2024
SOMBIR ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. R.K. Lathwal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 266, dated 22.05.2023, under Sections 307/506/34 of IPC (later on added 323/325/120-B IPC) and Section 25 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, Haryana.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as was argued on the previous date on behalf of learned State Counsel seeking rejection of the regular bail in the instant FIR on the ground of involvement of the petitioner in FIR No. 598/2017 dated 05.11.2017 under Sections 365, 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Ganaur, District Sonipat is concerned that the petitioner stands acquitted in that FIR vide judgment of acquittal dated 16.03.2019.
1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 20-07-2024 17:44:06 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080947
3. Apart from that, learned State Counsel fairly informs the Court that no injury has been attributed to the petitioner as far as the offence under Section 307 IPC is concerned, the allegation of assault are there but there is no use of fire arm by the petitioner which was used only by the other co-accused Davinder.
4. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. According to which, the petitioner is behind bars for last 9 months and 18 days.
5. Keeping in view the facts that the challan is presented on 19.08.2023 and since then even charges are not framed wherein out of total 19 witnesses, none has been examined till date and these very facts are sufficient for this Court to infer that trial will take time and detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and is against the principle "Bail is a rule, jail is an exception" as elucidated in the judgement of Apex Court in "Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another;, (2018) 3 SCC 22" added with the examination of role attributed to the petitioner in the instant FIR. The custody certificate produced by the State Counsel reflect that he has already incarcerated for a period of 9 months and 18 days and is not involved in any other case. It is also to be kept in mind that the petitioner was released on interim bail on 18.05.2024 and State Counsel has clarified that since then there is no adverse information coming forth regarding conduct of the petitioner.
2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 20-07-2024 17:44:07 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080947
6. In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
7. However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
8. Petition is allowed in abovesaid terms.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
01.07.2024
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 20-07-2024 17:44:07 :::