Punjab-Haryana High Court
Saroj vs State Of Haryana on 12 October, 2022
CRM-M-45390-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CRM-M-45390-2022
Date of decision : 12.10.2022
Smt. Saroj
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Rhythem Bajaj, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Praveen Bhadu, AAG, Haryana.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in FIR No.143 dated 29.04.2019 registered under Sections 147,
148, 149, 302, 323, 325, 427, 452, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at
Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad, Haryana.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the
present case, as per the FIR, no specific injury has been attributed to the
present petitioner. The person who is stated to have given a fatal blow with
gandasi is Gaurav @ Gora. It is further submitted that Angrej, who is
similarly placed as the present petitioner, has already been granted regular
bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.11.2021
passed in CRM-M-17876-2021. It is argued that the petitioner has been in
custody since 10.02.2022 and there are 31 witnesses, out of which, none
have been examined as yet and thus, the conclusion of the trial is likely to
take time. It is submitted that the petitioner is a lady of 56 years of age.
1 of 3
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the
present petition and has submitted that although, no specific injury has been
attributed to the petitioner but there are two incidents mentioned in the FIR
and the petitioner has been named in the second incident in which one
person has died. It is further submitted that the petitioner is involved in one
more case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has relied upon
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi
vs. State of U.P. and another", reported as 2012 (2) SCC 382 to contend
that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while
deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot
be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other
cases. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of
criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be
rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the
role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and
other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the
jurisdiction of the Court etc."
This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper book.
It is not in dispute that as per the prosecution case, no specific
injury has been attributed to the present petitioner. The injury, which has
caused the death of the deceased has been attributed to Gaurav @ Gora with
gandasi. The co-accused of the petitioner namely Angrej has already been
granted the benefit of regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 25.11.2021 passed in CRM-M-17876-2021 and the case of
2 of 3
the present petitioner is on a similar footing as that of Angrej. There are 31
witnesses, out of which, none have been examined as yet and thus, the
conclusion of trial is likely to take time. The petitioner is lady of 56 years of
age.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the
present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on
bail on her furnishing bail / surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned
trial Court/ Duty Magistrate and subject to her not being required in any
other case.
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.
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
October 12, 2022
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
