Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagpal vs State Of Haryana on 5 September, 2022
CRM-M-31747-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(226)
CRM-M-31747-2022
Date of decision: - 05.09.2022
Jagpal
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:- Mr. Anshumaan Dalal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Mohit Rathee, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
This is the first petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant
of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.250 dated 30.06.2021, under
Sections 302, 212, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Baroda, District
Sonipat.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the
present case, the petitioner has been falsely implicated and there is no
legally admissible evidence against the present petitioner to connect him
with the alleged crime. It is submitted that the petitioner is not named in
the FIR and as per the FIR, co-accused Jaidev along with one unknown
person had gone on a motorcycle and had shot with his pistol at the
1 of 5
deceased Parvinder, who was brother of the complainant Parveen and
fled. Even in the supplementary statement of the complainant, recorded
on 29.08.2021, the petitioner was not named as an accused. It is further
submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the person who had gone
along with co-accused Jaidev was Sushil @ Mithu. It is argued that it is
not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was also present at the
place of the alleged occurrence and the petitioner is sought to be
implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused
Jaidev and even in the said disclosure statement, no specific overt act or
role has been attributed to the present petitioner and the only allegation
against the present petitioner is that Jaidev, Anil, Sushil @ Mithu and the
present petitioner had hatched a conspiracy to murder Pavinder while
sitting in the house of said Jaidev. It is submitted that apart from the said
disclosure statement, there is no material to even remotely connect the
present petitioner with the alleged crime. It is further submitted that the
said disclosure statement of Jaidev has been signed by three witnesses i.e.
Head Constable Anoop Singh, Head Constable Pradeep and Mandeep son
of Ramesh and a perusal of the statements of each of the said three
witnesses, which have been annexed as Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-6,
respectively, would show that they have not named the present petitioner
and although, the details with respect to the disclosure statement suffered
by co-accused Jaidev have been given in the said statements, but even
while recording the same, name of the present petitioner has not been
mentioned therein, whereas, the names of Jaidev, Anil and Sushil @
Mithu, as having been a part of the conspiracy, have been specifically
2 of 5
mentioned. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody
since 17.02.2022 and there are 21 prosecution witnesses, none of whom
have been examined, thus, the trial is likely to take time.
Learned State counsel on the other hand has opposed the
present petition for regular bail and has submitted that the present
petitioner was also part of the conspiracy and the said fact is apparent
from the disclosure statement of co-accused Jaidev, who is brother of the
present petitioner. It is submitted that said Jaidev and the present
petitioner are residing in the same house and that the present petitioner is
involved in seven other cases and is a habitual offender.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal has submitted
that out of the said seven cases, the petitioner has been acquitted in three
cases and in other four cases he is on bail and 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."
3 of 5
This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
gone through the paper-book.
The petitioner has been in custody since 17.02.2022 and
there are 21 prosecution witnesses, none of whom have been examined,
thus, the trial is likely to take time. The petitioner was not named in the
FIR. As per the FIR, one Jaidev and another unknown person had gone
and had shot the brother of the complainant. The said Jaidev was
accompanied by another unknown person, who as per the case of the
prosecution was Sushil @ Mithu. The incident occurred on 30.06.2021
and the FIR had also been got registered on 30.06.2021 and thereafter, the
supplementary statement of Parveen (complainant) was recorded on
29.08.2021 (Annexure P-2) and even in the said statement, the petitioner
was not named as an accused. The petitioner has been implicated in the
present case after a period of more than six months from the date of the
alleged occurrence, on the basis of the disclosure statement of said Jaidev
dated 25.01.2022 (P-3). Even as per the said disclosure statement, no
overt act has been attributed to the present petitioner, nor it has been
stated that the petitioner was present at the spot, but it has been stated that
Jaidev, Anil, Sushil @ Mithu and the present petitioner had hatched a
conspiracy to murder Parvinder while sitting in the home of said Jaidev.
No recovery has been effected from the present petitioner even
subsequent to his arrest. The said disclosure statement of Jaidev has been
stated to have been signed by three witnesses i.e. Head Constable Anoop
Singh, Head Constable Pradeep and Mandeep son of Ramesh and a
perusal of the statements of each three of the said witnesses, which have
4 of 5
been annexed as Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-6, respectively, would show
that they had not named the present petitioner, although, they had given
the details with respect to the recording of the disclosure statement of
Jaidev and although, it had been stated therein that Jaidev, Anil and
Sushil @ Mithu had hatched a conspiracy, but the name of the present
petitioner had not been mentioned even with respect to the alleged
conspiracy.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances as
well as in view of the law down in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi's case
(supra), 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.
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 )
September 05, 2022 JUDGE
naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
