Satbir @ Sonu vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 8060 P&H

CRM-M-32124-2022 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

(211) CRM-M-32124-2022
Date of Decision: 29.07.2022
Satbir @ Sonu ...Petitioner
Versus

State of Haryana ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present: Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate and Mr. Tapan Masta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurbir S. Dhillon, AAG, Haryana.

2B 2R EK VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

1. This is a first petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.267, dated 06.11.2020 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, 1860 and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Jui Kalan, District Bhiwani, Haryana.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2020 (1 year 8 months and 9 days) and there are total 27 witnesses, out of which only three witnesses have been examined and while the fourth witness was examined, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the prosecution and thus the trial is likely to take time. It is submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the FIR which had been got registered by Pawan i.e. father of Amit, who is the deceased and as per the allegations in the said FIR, it had been stated by the complainant Pawan that on 05.11.2020, at about 7.30 p.m. he got information from one Arun that his son Amit had met with an accident and ultimately when he reached the spot, he found his son

vanpreer sincy 2 a unconscious state and upon approaching the hospital, he was told by the doctor 2022.08.05 10:04

| attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-32124-2022 2

that Amit had died on account of a bullet injury inflicted on the right side of his back. It has been contended that the complainant had specifically stated in the FIR that he has suspicion that the murder of his son had been done by Satish Brahmin and Jogender @ Jony. It is submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR nor any suspicion was raised against the present petitioner. It is further submitted that after a period of 7 days, a supplementary statement had been recorded by the complainant Pawan Kumar i.e. on 13.11.2020, wherein he has stated that he had now come to know that his son (deceased) had friendship with Satish Brahmin and the said Satish Brahmin was friendly with a girl and the said Amit through Satish Brahmin, had developed a relationship with the said girl and when her brother Chander Kant found out about the said relationship then, Chander Kant and the present petitioner, who is the cousin brother of the said girl alongwith Deepak, had planned to kill the deceased Amit and that all the three persons are equally responsible for the said murder. It is submitted that it was not on the basis of investigation carried out by the police that the petitioner had been involved in the present case but it is on account of the supplementary statement of the complainant that the petitioner had been arrayed as an accused without there being any basis/material mentioned in the supplementary statement to implicate the petitioner. It is submitted that on 05.11.2020, the complainant was suspicious about the friends of Amit whereas now he has stated that it was the brother, cousin of the girl and one Deepak, who had committed the murder of Amit. It is argued that the brother of the said girl Chander Kant has already been granted the concession of regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide order dated 25.02.2022 and even co- accused Deepak has been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 24.01.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is submitted that there is no eye witness in the present case.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present application for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner and has submitted that as per

the disclosure statement of Chander Kant, it has been stated that it was the present

MANPREET SINGH

2022.08.05 10:04

| attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-32124-2022 3

petitioner who had fired the fatal shot and even the recovery of pistol along with live cartridges has been effected from the present petitioner. The other facts however

have not been disputed by the learned State counsel.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper-book.

6. The petitioner has been in custody since 20.11.2020 (1 year 8 months

and 9 days) and there are total 27 witnesses, out of which, only three witnesses have been examined and after the examination-in-chief of the fourth witness, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the prosecution and thus, the trial is likely to take time.

7. A perusal of the FIR would show that the complainant Pawan had stated that he had learnt from one Arun that his son Amit had met with an accident and after meeting with the doctor, he learnt that the said Amit had been killed on account of a gun-shot injury suffered on the right side of his back and had stated he was suspicious about Satish Brahmin and Jogender @ Jony with respect to having committed the murder of his son. On 13.11.2020, after a period of 7 days, the said complainant had given a supplementary statement as per which he completely changed his stance and stated that he has now come to know that the deceased Amit had friendship with one Satish Brahmin and Satish Brahmin was acquainted with a girl and it is through Satish Brahmin that the said Amit engaged in a love affair with the said girl and it is the brother of the said girl i.e. Chander Kant and the present petitioner (who is the cousin of the girl) and one Deepak, who committed the murder of Amit and all three were equally responsible for the same. The said Chander Kant has already been granted the concession of regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide order dated 25.02.2022 and even Deepak has been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 24.01.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-35367 of 2021.

8. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that

there is no tangible material against the petitioner to show that on what basis the

MANPREET SINGH

2022.08.05 10:04

| attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

MANPREET SINGH 2022.08.05 10:04

CRM-M-32124-2022 4

complainant Pawan Kumar had come to the conclusion that the petitioner is involved in the commission of the crime in question, as had been stated in the supplementary statement, cannot be out rightly rejected. The said aspect shall be considered during the course of trial.

9. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, most of the custody period of the petitioner as well as the fact that he is not involved in any other case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail / surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate and subject to him not being required in any other case.

10. However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by the petitioner to threaten or influence 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 petitioner.

11. Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final 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 petition.

( VIKAS BAHL ) JUDGE July 29, 2022 Manpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

| attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment