Vedpal vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 15941 P&H

CRM-M-51463-2022 (O&M)                                                   -1-

230
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                 CRM-M-51463-2022 (O&M)
                                                 Date of decision : 06.12.2022

Vedpal

                                                                     ...Petitioner

                                        Versus

State of Haryana

                                                                   ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:     Mr. V.B. Godara, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Vishal Malik, AAG, Haryana.

             ****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the

petitioner in FIR No.143 dated 29.04.2019 registered under Sections 147,

148, 149, 302, 323, 427 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police

Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad, Haryana.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner has been in custody since 22.02.2022 and as per the FIR, no

specific injury has been attributed to the present petitioner with regard to the

deceased. It is further submitted that the person who has been alleged to

have given the fatal blow with gandasi on the head of the deceased is

namely, Gaurav @ Gora. It is further argued that co-accused of the

petitioner, namely, Birpal, has already been granted the concession of

1 of 4

CRM-M-51463-2022 (O&M) -2-

regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 25.02.2022 passed in CRM-M-

51295-2021. It is further submitted that in the present case, 22 persons have

been arrayed as accused persons. It is also submitted that there are 31

prosecution witnesses, out of which, none have been examined as yet, thus,

the conclusion of the trial is likely to take time.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the

present petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner and has submitted

that the petitioner was named in the FIR and it has been stated that the

petitioner and some other accused persons were armed with lathis/dandas. It

is further submitted that co-accused, namely, Gaurav @ Gora had given a

fatal blow on account of which, Haji Ram had died and that all the accused

persons had caused injuries to the four victims in the said incident. It is

further submitted that the petitioner is also involved in one more FIR

registered under Section 174-A IPC and thus, the present petitioner does not

deserve the concession of regular bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal to the said

argument, has submitted that in the said case, the petitioner has been

convicted for a period of five days and a fine of Rs.1,000/- has also been

imposed on him and he has already undergone the said sentence and has

relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Maulana Mohd.

Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another", reported as 2012 (2) SCC

382 to contend that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be

seen and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on

the ground that the petitioner is involved in another case. The relevant

portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

2 of 4

CRM-M-51463-2022 (O&M) -3-

"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."

It is further submitted that no recovery of danda has been

effected from the present petitioner.

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has

perused the paper book.

It is not in dispute that as per the prosecution's case, no specific

injury has been attributed to the petitioner with regard to the deceased. The

injury, on account of which death of the deceased occurred, has been

attributed to co-accused Gaurav @ Gora with a gandasi. The petitioner has

been in custody since 22.02.2022 and out of 31 prosecution witnesses, none

have been examined as yet, thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take

time. Co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Birpal has already been granted

the concession of regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 25.02.2022

passed in CRM-M-51295-2021 and there are 22 persons who have been

arrayed as accused in the present case.

Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances and also

in view of law laid down in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi's case (supra),

the present petition for regular bail is allowed and the petitioner is ordered

to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to him

not being required in any other case.

However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by the

3 of 4

CRM-M-51463-2022 (O&M) -4-

petitioner to threaten the complainant or any of the witnesses, then it would

be open to the State to move an application for cancellation of bail granted

to the petitioner.

Nothing stated above shall be construed as an expression of

opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently

of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose

of adjudicating the present bail application.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

disposed of in view of the abovesaid judgment.

06.12.2022                                            (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan                                                    JUDGE


             Whether speaking/reasoned:-              Yes/No

             Whether reportable:-                     Yes/No




                                4 of 4