Shiva Alias Kala vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 16513 P&H

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

212
                                             CRM-M-365-2022 (O&M)
                                             Date of decision : 12.12.2022

Shiva @ Kala                                                     Petitioner

                                 V/S

State of Haryana                                              Respondent


CORAM :     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA

Present:    Mr. Shivam Grover, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Munish Sharma, Asstt. A.G., Haryana
            for the respondent-State.

                                 ****

ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J. (ORAL)

CRM-36667-2022

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed and copies of statements of complainant and his son who

appeared before the Trial Court as PW-3 and PW-4, filed by the

petitioner, are taken on record as Annexures P-3 and P-4.

CRM-39863-2022

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed and copies of statements made by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 filed

by the petitioner are taken on record as Annexures P-5 to P-7.

CRM-M-365-2022

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section

439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.')

for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.36 dated 18.01.2021 registered

under Sections 379-B, 392, 395, 397, 412 and 201 of the Indian Penal

1 of 3

CRM-M-365-2022 (O&M) -2-

Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police

Station City Sonipat, District Sonipat.

The above-said FIR was registered on a complaint made

by complainant-Farid Chand alleging that he is running a Dhaba under

the name of Style 'Vaishno Dhaba' on Gohana Road, underneath

Railway Bridge near Gol Market. On 16.01.2021 at about 09:30 p.m.

4/5 young boys came to his Dhaba. Out of them, 02 were armed with

pistols snatched the cash of Rs.1500/- from his cash box and also

snatched his mobile phone.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of

disclosure statement made by co-accused. On the day of alleged

incident, the petitioner was already in custody in other case i.e. FIR

No.41 dated 19.01.2021. The present FIR was registered after a delay

of 02 days. The material witnesses i.e. complainant-Farid Chand and

his son Sandeep Kumar, who have been examined by the Trial Court as

PW-3 and PW-4 respectively, do not support the case of the

prosecution and turned hostile. The petitioner is in custody since

20.01.2021. Out of 21 prosecution witnesses, 07 have been examined

so far. The trial is likely to take long time. No useful purpose will be

served by further detention of the petitioner in custody. Therefore, the

petitioner may be released on regular bail.

On the other hand, learned State opposed the present

petition on the ground that the petitioner actively participated in the

alleged offence and in his disclosure statement the petitioner submitted

that he had destroyed the mobile phone of the complainant. The

2 of 3

CRM-M-365-2022 (O&M) -3-

petitioner is also involved in one other case under the Arms Act.

Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve concession of regular bail

and the present petition may be dismissed.

As far as involvement of petitioner in other case i.e. FIR

No.41 dated 19.01.2021 registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act is

concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has already been acquitted in the said case vide judgment dated

08.06.2022 passed by the Trial Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the paper-book.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,

custody period of the petitioner, the fact that the the material witnesses

i.e. complainant PW-3 and his son PW-4 have turned hostile and also

the fact that the trial likely to take long time but without commenting

on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner

deserves the concession of regular bail.

The petitioner-Shiva @ Kala is ordered to be released on

regular bail subject to furnishing his bail/surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate

concerned.

12.12.2022                                 (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA)
kothiyal                                          JUDGE

             Whether speaking/reasoned:              Yes/No
             Whether Reportable:                     Yes/No




                                 3 of 3