Vishal @ Gonga vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 13104 P&H

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH
230
                                                         CRA-S-1421-2022(O&M)
                                                        Date of decision: 14.10.2022

VISHAL @ GONGA
                                                                     ....Appellant(s)
                                Versus

STATE OF HARYANA
                                                                    ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
                         *****

Present : Mr. Rajender Singh Malik, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG Haryana ***** VIKAS BAHL. J. (ORAL)

CRM-28402-2022

This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for

condonation of delay of 95 days in filing the appeal.

Notice in the application.

Learned State counsel has opposed the application.

For the reasons given in the application, same is allowed. Delay of 95

days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

CRA-S-1421-2022

Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 10.08.2021

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the regular

bail application has been dismissed in FIR No.331 dated 29.06.2020 under

Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 307, 506, 120-B and 201 Indian Penal Code,

1860 and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) (VA) of the SC/ST Act registered at Police

Station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is

1 of 3

CRA-S-1421-2022(O&M) -2 -

in custody since 30.08.2020 and there are 21 witnesses and has submitted that the

trial is likely to take time. It is submitted that the appellant was not named in the

FIR which was recorded on 29.06.2020 and was only implicated as an accused on

the statement of Narinder @ Nidu on 11.08.2020. It is submitted that even as per

the disclosure statement, no specific injury has been attributed to the present

appellant to any person and that the injury attracting offence under Section 307

IPC has been attributed to co-accused Narinder @ Nidu. He has further submitted

that out of 07 accused persons, 05 accused namely, Jaspreet @ Rohit Sethi,

Charanjot @ Jot, Kulwinder Singh @ Nanu Virk, Preet @ Patta @ Gurpreet Singh

and Karan Dhingra @ K.D. have already been granted the benefit of regular bail

vide various orders passed by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court.

Learned State counsel has opposed the present appeal and has

submitted that the appellant has been specifically named by the co-accused

Narinder @ Nidu and the present appellant was a member of the unlawful

assembly and he cannot take the plea that no specific injury has been attributed to

the present appellant. He has further submitted that the appellant is involved in

one more case.

Learned counsel for the appellant in rebuttal has submitted that the

appellant is on bail in that case and relied upon the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State

of U.P. and others reported as 2012 (2) SCC 382 reference has been made to the

relevant portion of paragraph 6 which 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

2 of 3

CRA-S-1421-2022(O&M) -3 -

away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc." This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material on record.

The appellant is in custody since 30.08.2020 and he was not named in

the FIR, which was registered on 29.06.2020. The appellant has been nominated as

an accused on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Narinder @ Nidu

recorded on 11.08.2020 and even as per the said disclosure statement, no specific

injury has been attributed to the present appellant. The injury attracting offence

under Section 307 IPC has been attributed to co-accused Narinder @ Nidu.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the appeal is allowed

and the appellant is directed 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.

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 appeal.

                                                          (VIKAS BAHL)
                                                             JUDGE
October 14, 2022
S.Sharma(syr)

        Whether speaking/reasoned        :       Yes/No
        Whether reportable               :       Yes/No




                                        3 of 3