Punjab-Haryana High Court
Khalid vs State Of Haryana on 5 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
210
CRM-M-25710-2022
Decided on : 05.09.2022
Khalid
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana
. . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Yadav, Addl. AG, Haryana.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner -
Khalid, who has been booked for having committed the offence punishable
under Sections 148, 149, 332, 353, 186, 307, 427, 379 of IPC, in FIR No.
529, dated 18.12.2005, registered at Police Station City Hansi, District Hisar.
On the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that other three accused in this case namely Rahim Khan, Mahmood Khan
and Chowan, faced trial and were acquitted vide judgment dated 19.02.2010,
by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar (Annexure P-2), and out
of these three, accused No.2 - Mahmood Khan, is the father of present
petitioner. Thus, submits that chances of conviction of the petitioner also are
not there in this case. Learned counsel further submits that it is a case,
wherein, allegation of firing on police party, has been levelled without
specifying the accused, who has actually fired upon the police.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that since three
JAWALA RAM
2022.09.06 14:22
of the accused, have already been acquitted, allegation of firing on police
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
party losses weight in itself, because, till date, this fact has not been proved
by any evidence by the police during the course of the trial in Sessions case
No. 9-SC of 2006 (P-2).
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
he is inside jail since 11th December, 2021 and out of total 25 prosecution
witnesses, only 03 prosecution witnesses, have been examined so far.
On the other hand, learned State counsel while opposing the
prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits
that as per details mentioned in para 11 of the reply filed by the State by way
of affidavit dated 15.07.2022, there are total 11 cases including 05 cases
under Section 174-A of IPC and in case, petitioner is granted concession of
regular bail, he would again disappear and proceedings of the trial would
block again.
Apart from this, there is no other explanation with the learned
State counsel that once other three co-accused have been acquitted, what
would be the sound evidence to prove guilt of the petitioner. Learned State
counsel submits that this part would be proved during the course of trial of
producing evidence before the trial Court.
After considering the submissions of both the sides, and
perusing the material available on record with their able assistance, and in the
totality of the circumstances that already there is a judgment of acquittal
dated 19.02.2010 (P-2) qua three of the co-accused, burden of proving the
case against petitioner would be very heavy upon the prosecution side, but
petitioner cannot be kept inside for the said purpose, especially, when trial is
moving very slow, as only 03 prosecution witnesses have been stated to be
examined out of the total 25 prosecution witnesses.
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the
JAWALA RAM
2022.09.06 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
case and the submissions made by the parties, the present petition is allowed.
Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in this case, subject to his
furnishing heavy bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate
concerned, if not required in any other case.
It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and
shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or
indirectly.
The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case
on the basis of evidence available on record.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
September 05, 2022
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
JAWALA RAM
2022.09.06 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
