Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunder vs State Of Haryana on 21 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
203 CRM-M No.58401 of 2022
Date of Decision : 21.12.2022
Sunder ....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, AAG Haryana.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
This is the third petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR
No.418 dated 20.11.2019 under Sections 302, 120-B, 34 and 212 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at
Police Station Faridabad NIT, District Faridabad. The earlier two petitions
being CRM-M-14425 of 2020 and CRM-M-43291 of 2020 were dismissed
as withdrawn vide orders dated 18.08.2020 and 06.01.2021, respectively.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the
petitioner has been in custody for a period of 03 years and 23 days. It is
further the contention that the FIR in the present case was registered against
unknown persons. It was stated in the FIR that a pillion rider, whose face
was covered, fired a shot at Subhash and as a result of the said injury
Subhash is stated to have died. Subsequently, on the statement of son of
deceased - Subhash - accused, namely, Kanchan Kumari @ Khewita and
Jaidev @ Kukki, were nominated in the case and they were arrested on
23.11.2019. Thereafter, on the disclosure statement of Kanchan Kumari @
Khewita, accused, namely, Kuldeep and Amit, were arrested and thereafter,
on the disclosure statement of accused, Kuldeep, the present petitioner was
nominated in the case. It is further contended that challan in the present case
stood presented on 03.02.2020 and charges against the petitioner have been
framed only under Section 212 read with Sections 120-B and 34 IPC on
15.12.2020. He would further contend that out of total 45 witnesses only 03
witnesses have been examined till date.
JITENDER KUMAR
2022.12.22 09:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
Learned State counsel on instructions from SI Satyawan is not
in a position to dispute the facts as stated by learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and
keeping in view the fact that charges against the petitioner have been framed
only under Section 212 read with Section 120-B and Section 34 IPC; and the
fact that the petitioner has been in custody for a period of 03 years and 23
days and further that out of 45 witnesses only 03 witnesses stand examined
and also the fact that conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I
deem it to be a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the
petitioner. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his
furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa
Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/Trial Court concerned.
However, the Prosecution will always be at liberty to apply for
cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found to be misusing the
concession of bail in any manner.
It is also made clear that any observation made herein shall not
be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Disposed off. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed
off.
( ALKA SARIN )
21.12.2022 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
JITENDER KUMAR
2022.12.22 09:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
