Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yaad Ram vs State Of Haryana on 15 December, 2022
CRM-M-38357-2020 and
other connected cases -1-
220
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. CRM-M-38357-2020
Date of decision : 15.12.2022
Yaad Ram
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
2. CRM-M-7129-2021
Date of decision : 15.12.2022
Fokrya
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
3. CRM-M-7492-2021
Date of decision : 15.12.2022
Bunny and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
4. CRM-M-8074-2021
Date of decision : 15.12.2022
Meera
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2022 21:36:23 :::
CRM-M-38357-2020 and
other connected cases -2-
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Gourave Bhayyia Gilhotra, Advocate and
Mr. Akash Manocha, Advocate and
Mr. Lovepreet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner
(In CRM-M-38357-2020)
Mr. Ravinder Bangar, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
(CRM-M Nos.7129, 7492 and 8074 of 2021)
Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG, Haryana.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
By this common order, four petitions bearing No.CRM-M-
38357-2020, CRM-M-7129-2021, CRM-M-7492-2021 and CRM-M-
8074-2021 shall stand disposed of.
First petition i.e. CRM-M-38357-2020 has been filed by
Yaad Ram, second petition i.e. CRM-M-7129-2021 has been filed by
Fokrya, third petition i.e. CRM-M-7492-2021 has been filed by Bunny
and Ram Lal and fourth petition i.e. CRM-M-8074-2021 has been filed
by Meera, for grant of regular bail in FIR No.24 dated 22.05.2018
registered under Sections 459, 460 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and
Sections 302, 395, 396, 120-B of IPC and Sections 3(2) V, 5-A of SC/ST
Act, (added later on) at Police Station GRP Kurukshetra, District GRP
Ambala Cantt.
2 of 8
CRM-M-38357-2020 and
other connected cases -3-
Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly submitted
that the petitioners except the petitioner-Fokrya are in custody since
02.06.2018 and the petitioner-Fokrya has been in custody since
03.06.2018 (more than 4 years and 6 months) and investigation is
complete and challan has been presented and there are 62 prosecution
witnesses, out of which, only 37 witnesses have been examined and thus,
the conclusion of trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that the
petitioners are not involved in any other case and keeping the petitioners
in further incarceration would be in violation of rights of the petitioners
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is contended
that FIR has been registered on the statement of Isham Singh, who has
not named the present petitioners in the FIR and has named one Sachin
and his friends on the basis of suspicion as there was a dispute between
Sachin and Raja Ram (deceased). It is further contented that said Sachin
has not been challaned. It is argued that there is no eye-witness in the
present case and the petitioners have been sought to be implicated solely
on account of the fact that their mobile phones were found to be active
near Village Neem, Kurukshetra where the incident had taken place. It is
further argued that even as per the latest report dated 08.03.2022
submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Railways Haryana,
Headquarters, Ambala Cantt, it is apparent that mobile phones of a large
number of people were found to be active in the same area but however,
said persons were left out. It has been highlighted that in para 7 of the
status report, it has been stated that the complainant-Isham Singh was
3 of 8
CRM-M-38357-2020 and
other connected cases -4-
also suspicious of one Sukhbir @ Sukha other than Sachin Kumar but no
incriminating evidence was found against him also. It is also submitted
that the presence of the petitioners is neither proved from the CCTV
Footage nor from any other material and the primary evidence against the
petitioners is that their mobile phones were found to be active near
Village Neem, Kurukshetra and their alleged disclosure statements
admitting their guilt. It is also contended that as crude padding, Surender
Kumar and Ram Pal, who are truck drivers, have been made as witnesses,
although, their mobile phones were also working in the same area and the
said witnesses are not even eye-witnesses to the incident in question. It is
also argued that even if the entire evidence, which has been collected by
the prosecution as stated in report dated 08.03.2022, is taken into
consideration, then also, there is every likelihood that the petitioners
would be acquitted.
On the other hand, learned State Counsel has referred to the
status report dated 08.03.2022 and has opposed the present petitions for
grant of regular bail to the petitioners and submitted that in the present
case, murder of two persons had taken place i.e. Raja Ram and Arjun and
grievous injuries had been inflicted upon one Sandeep who also
subsequently died and large number of sheep were also killed/injured. It
is further submitted that a perusal of the said report would show that the
police has been able to connect the present petitioners with the offence on
account of their mobile phones having been found to be active near
Village Neem and on account of disclosure statements suffered by them
4 of 8
CRM-M-38357-2020 and
other connected cases -5-
and also, on account of the recovery of dandas effected from the present
petitioners. It is argued that the truck drivers Ram Pal and Surender
Kumar whose mobile phones were also working in same area had got
their statements recorded to the effect that they had identified the present
petitioners as the persons who had taken lift from them and were present
in the area where the incident in question had taken place.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, in rebuttal, have
submitted that the recovered dandas/sticks are commonly available in
various areas and there is no proof that the said sticks were used in the
commission of the offence in question as neither they are stated to be
bloodstained nor there is any report or any proof that the deceased were
killed by the said dandas.
This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper book.
All the petitioners, except Fokrya, have been in custody since
02.06.2018 and the petitioner-Fokrya has been in custody since
03.06.2018 and thus, custody of each of the petitioner(s) is more than 4
years and 6 months and investigation is complete and challan has been
presented and out of 62 prosecution witnesses, only 37 witnesses have
been examined as yet and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take
time. The petitioners are stated to be not involved in any other case. In
the present case, there is no eye-witness and thus, the entire case is based
on circumstantial evidence. A perusal of FIR would show that the same
had been registered on the statement of Isham Singh, who is the brother
5 of 8
CRM-M-38357-2020 and
other connected cases -6-
of the deceased-Raja Ram and he had alleged that on 21.05.2018, one
Sachin alongwith another person, who was ultimately found to be
Sukhbir @ Sukha (not one of the present petitioners) wanted to buy sheep
from Raja Ram (deceased) but the said deal did not materialize.
Thereafter, on 22.05.2018, at about 5 AM, the complainant was informed
by unknown persons that near the railway station, lots of sheep were
lying dead and that his brother and Arjun were also lying dead and that
one Sandeep was in a critical condition and hands and legs of all the three
persons were tied and large number of sheep were also injured. The said
complainant had raised suspicion upon Sachin and his friend (who later
on turned out to be Sukhbir @ Sukha). The petitioners(s) have not been
named in the FIR. The detailed status report dated 08.03.2022 has been
filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Railways Haryana,
Headquarters, Ambala Cantt in the present case and as per para 7 of the
said status report, it has been found that Sachin Kumar and Sukhbir @
Sukha, about whom the complainant-Isham Singh was suspicious, have
been found to be innocent as no incriminating evidence has come to light
against them. Even in the supplementary statement recorded by the
complainant-Isham Singh, the present petitioners have not been named. It
is apparent from para 9 of the said status report that a large number of
suspected persons including Hansraj, Vinod Kumar, Ram Kumar and
Rohit @ Kalwa were questioned but nothing was found against them and
thereafter, when further investigation was carried out, large number of
mobile phones as have been detailed in para 15 of the said report, were
6 of 8
CRM-M-38357-2020 and
other connected cases -7-
found to be active near the place of occurrence. One of the suspected
mobile No.9729865280 belonged to one Ram Pal son of Badan Singh and
enquiry was conducted and he was also found to be innocent. Thereafter,
on 01.06.2018, further suspected mobile numbers which were found to be
active near Village Neem were found to be used by Ram Lal (petitioner),
Meera Devi (petitioner), Bani (petitioner), Ramesh, Kamlesh and
Mathura and it has been stated in para 14 of the status report that on
further enquiry having been made from them, they admitted their guilt
and thus, as per the said status report, the starting point on the basis of
which the petitioners were found to be involved in the present case was
the factum of their mobile phones being active near Village Neem and
their disclosure statements admitting their guilt. It is further stated in para
15 of the status report that after further investigation, evidence against the
petitioner-Fokrya also surfaced and thus, he was arrested. However, the
details of the said material have not been mentioned. The disclosure
statements of the petitioners were recorded and recovery of dandas was
made from various accused persons including the present petitioners. It is
further the case of the prosecution that the statements of truck drivers
namely Ram Pal and Surender Kumar were also recorded and the said
persons were the persons who, although were not eye-witnesses, but were
the persons whose mobile phones were found to be active near the place
of occurrence and had stated that the present petitioners had taken a lift in
their trucks. The question whether on the basis of abovesaid material, the
petitioners would be convicted or not, would be finally adjudicated by the
7 of 8
CRM-M-38357-2020 and
other connected cases -8-
trial Court. This Court does not wish to give any final opinion lest it
would cause prejudice to either of the two parties.
Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, more
so, the custody period of the petitioners and the stage of the trial and their
past antecedents and also the fact that there is no eye-witness in the
present case, all the petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered
to be released on regular bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to them not being
required in any other case.
However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by the
petitioners 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 petitioners.
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.
15.12.2022 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
8 of 8
