Aadesh Alias Golu vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 14277 P&H

CRM-M-30954-2022 (O&M)                                                   -1-

212
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                 CRM-M-30954-2022 (O&M)
                                                 Date of decision : 14.11.2022

Aadesh @ Golu

                                                                     ...Petitioner

                                        Versus

State of Haryana

                                                                   ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:     Mr. Rakesh Kumar Lathwal, Advocate and
             Mr. Man Mohit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG, Haryana.

             ****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

CRM-24896-2022

This is an application filed for grant of leave under Rule 3/A(1)

of Chapter VI, Part B, Volume V of Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules

and Orders to file the present petition.

In view of averments made in the application, the same is

allowed and leave is granted under the aforesaid Rules and Orders to file the

present petition.

Main case

Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the

petitioner in FIR No.63 dated 18.02.2020 registered under Sections 302 and

34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Sonipat Rai, District

1 of 4

CRM-M-30954-2022 (O&M) -2-

Sonipat (Haryana).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner is in custody since 04.06.2020 and is not involved in any other

case. It is further submitted that the material witnesses in the present case

including PW2-Vishal (complainant), PW3-Pintu, PW4-Rakesh Bharti

(nephew of the deceased) have already been examined and they have not

supported the case of the prosecution. It is contended that FIR in the present

case was registered by the complainant merely on the basis of suspicion. It

is further contended that there are 22 prosecution witnesses, out of which, 8

witnesses are yet to be examined and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to

take time.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the

present petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner and has submitted

that FIR in the present case was recorded on the statement of Vishal, who

had stated that his father Vashisht Bharti (deceased) was a contractor by

profession and the present petitioner along with Raju and Umesh were

working with his father as labourers and when his father had gone missing

then, after making telephonic calls to the petitioner and other labourers, the

complainant searched for the deceased and he found his father on the third

floor of plot No.2181, Rai and his father's hands and legs were found to be

tied with a rope and his mouth was also tied with clothes and then on the

basis of same, the present FIR was registered by said Vishal against the

present petitioner, Raju and Umesh by alleging that he was suspicious of the

said three persons. It is further submitted that even though the material

witnesses have turned hostile but the case is based on circumstantial

2 of 4

CRM-M-30954-2022 (O&M) -3-

evidence and the present case involves the death of father of the

complainant, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular

bail.

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has

perused the paper book.

In the present case, the petitioner was named by the

complainant-Vishal in the FIR on the basis of suspicion. Said Vishal has

been examined as PW2 and he has stated that the accused persons who were

present in the Court that day, which included the present petitioner, were not

the persons who had committed the murder of his father and accordingly, he

has been declared to be hostile and even PW4-Rakesh Bharti, who is the

nephew of the deceased has also specifically stated in his examination-in-

chief that neither did he reach the place of occurrence nor he knows the

accused persons including the present petitioner and he has also been

declared as hostile. PW3-Pintu has also stated that he had seen the accused

persons which included the present petitioner in the Court on said day and

they were not the culprits who had murdered the father of the complainant

and even he had been declared as hostile. The petitioner has been in custody

since 04.06.2020 and is stated to be not involved in any other case and out

of 22 prosecution witnesses, 8 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined

and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take time.

Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the

present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on

regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial

Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to him not being required in any other case.

                                3 of 4

 CRM-M-30954-2022 (O&M)                                               -4-

However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by the

petitioner 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 petitioner.

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.

14.11.2022                                            (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan                                                    JUDGE


             Whether speaking/reasoned:-              Yes/No

             Whether reportable:-                     Yes/No




                                4 of 4