Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karanveer Kumar @ Ranchu vs State Of Haryana on 21 July, 2022
CRM-M-30368-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-30368-2022
Date of Decision: July 21, 2022
Karanveer Kumar @ Ranchu
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, AAG, Haryana.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 46, dated 28.02.2021,
under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341, 452, 506 and 307 (which was added later
on) IPC, registered at Police Station Sadhaura, District Yamunanagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the allegation
against the petitioner is for inflicting injury with Danda upon the victim.
Learned counsel submits that the similar allegation is against two accused,
i.e. against the petitioner as well as the co-accused, namely, Jai Pal. Learned
PRASHANT KAPOOR
2022.07.21 19:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
counsel further submits that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is
already behind the bars since 10.06.2021; there are total 19 prosecution
witnesses to be examined; the complainant as well as the victim have
already been examined; and the trial is likely to take some time before it
concludes, the petitioner may kindly be granted the concession of regular
bail, at this stage.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General,
Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that
as per allegations recorded in the FIR, the petitioner alongwith one Jai Pal,
inflicted the injuries upon the victim, namely, Kiran Pal. The description of
the injuries has not been mentioned in the FIR, but as per the MLR, Injury
No. 1, which is on the head of the victim, Kiran Pal, is stated to be grievous.
Whether the injury, which has been declared grievous in nature, is attributed
to the petitioner or the co-accused, Jai Pal, is a matter of evidence, which
will come on record during the trial. Learned State counsel, however,
concedes the fact that there are 19 prosecution witnesses, out of which only
five have been examined and the complainant as well as the victim already
stand examined.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
Whether the injury which has been declared lift threatening, is
inflicted by the petitioner or the co-accused, is yet to be ascertained and the
same can only be proved on the basis of the evidence which will come on
PRASHANT KAPOOR
2022.07.21 19:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
record. As of now, the complainant as well as the victim have already been
examined and, hence, question of influencing the witnesses does not arise at
this stage. The petitioner is already behind bars since 10.06.2021, fourteen
prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, hence, the trial is likely to take
some time before it conclude. No justifiable purpose will be served in
keeping the petitioner behind the bars, especially when learned counsel for
the petitioner has undertaken before this Court that the petitioner will not
influence the trial in any manner and will maintain good conduct, if he is
granted bail. In case of default of the undertaking, the State will be at liberty
to approach this Court for passing appropriate orders.
The petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail in this
case, subject to furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial
Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it is made clear that anything
observed herein shall not be construed to be an expression of any opinion on
the merits of the case.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
July 21, 2022
Pkapoor Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
PRASHANT KAPOOR
2022.07.21 19:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
