Sunil @ Sheela vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 15951 P&H

                                                                                    -1-
CRM-M-22775 of 2022


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH


                                          CRM-M-22775 of 2022
                                          Date of decision: 06.12.2022

Sunil alias Sheela
                                                                   ...........Petitioner

                                       versus



State of Haryana
                                                                   .......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR

Present:     Mr. Govind Mor, Advocate,
             for Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate, for the petitioner.
             Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, DAG, Haryana.

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439

Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No.344 dated 09.09.2017 under

Sections 307, 34, 379-B IPC (Section 120-B IPC added lateron) and Section

25-54-59 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Madlauda,

District Panipat.

Brief facts of the case are that on 08.09.2017, complainant

Manish alias Billu was going to his house along with his brother Jitender at

about 9.45 p.m. In the meantime, three boys came on Splendor Motorcycle

from behind. After stopping Motorcycle, one of them fired upon him with

intention to kill him and other gave butt blow on his head and third one

snatched away cash bag from his hand, in which ledger of their shop was

there. Accordingly, formal FIR was registered. Initially untraced report was

filed on 07.01.2018. Co-accused Amit alias Mita son of Karam Chand was

1 of 3

CRM-M-22775 of 2022

arrested in FIR No.693 dated 06.06.2017, under Sections 302/120-B/34 IPC

and 25-54-59 of Arms Act. Co-accused Amit made disclosure statement that

on 08.09.2017, at about 8:00/900 p.m., he along with Rakesh son of Pushkar

and Sunil alias Silla (present petitioner) by riding the Motorcycle of Rakesh,

snatched the cash bag from a person and while snatching the bag, Rakesh

son of Pushkar fired at him whereas he gave butt blow on the head of that

person. Petitioner was joined in the investigation of the present case on

29.12.2018 after taking production warrants and he was formally arrested.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in this case on the disclosure statement of co-

accused Amit @ Mitta, which has no evidentiary value. He submits that co-

accused, namely, Hanish Kumar alias Thakur has been granted regular bail

by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide order dated

02.02.2019 and other two co-accused, namely, Rakesh and Amit @ Mitta

(main accused) have been admitted to regular bail by the Court of learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide order dated 10.06.2021. He fairly

submits that there are four more FIRs registered against the petitioner

wherein he is either acquitted or on bail. Learned counsel submits that mere

pendency of other cases cannot be made ground to deny the bail to the

petitioner in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (1)

R.C.R. (Criminal) 831. Learned counsel also relies on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P.

and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382, wherein it has been held as under: -

"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent

2 of 3

CRM-M-22775 of 2022

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."

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in this

case challan has already been presented; charges have been framed; out of

13 prosecution witnesses only one witness has been examined and now the

case is fixed for prosecution evidence on 2.2.2023. Learned counsel further

submits that conclusion of trial may take a long time. Petitioner is in

custody since 29.12.2018. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner.

Learned counsel submits that no useful purpose would be served by keeping

the petitioner behind the bars, therefore, he may be granted regular bail.

Learned State counsel could vehemently opposed the grant of

regular bail to the petitioner, however, he admits the factual position that

out of 13 prosecution witnesses only one witness has been examined and

that conclusion of trial is likely to take a long time.

Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case,

however, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the petitioner is

ordered to be released on regular bail during trial on his furnishing bail

bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court.

The petition stands disposed off accordingly.

                                                    (NAMIT KUMAR)
06.12.2022                                             JUDGE
R.S.
             Whether speaking/reasoned          :     Yes/No

             Whether reportable                 :     Yes/No




                                       3 of 3