Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manpreet @ Manni vs State Of Haryana on 6 September, 2022
CRM-M-35284-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CRM-M-35284-2022
Date of decision : 06.09.2022
Manpreet @ Manni
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Nishant Indal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
This is the first petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.,
praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.280 dated
26.7.2019, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 307 and 506 IPC (Section 302 IPC
added later on) and under Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act,
registered at Police Station Ladwa, District Kurukshetra.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is in custody since 10.8.2019 and there are 35 witnesses out of
which, only 17 witnesses have been examined, and thus, the trial is likely to
take time. It is further submitted that in the present case even the cause of
death of the deceased Amit Thakur has not been ascertained. A reference
has been made to the post mortem report as per which it has been stated that
the cause of death will be given after receiving reports of HPE of viscera
and as per the report of the viscera, it has been stated that no opinion could
1 of 4
possibly be given after having examined the lungs as they showed advance
autolytic changes. Further, reference has been made to paragraph 3 of the
order dated 21.02.2022, vide which the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected in which the contention of the petitioner before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, was noticed to the effect that there is a
possibility that the deceased might have died on account of medical
negligence because as per death summary given by the Cheema Medical
Complex, where the deceased had succumbed to his alleged injuries, it is
specifically mentioned that initially the deceased was admitted in another
hospital where he was incubated and after he vomited, and same was
inhaled/ingested by him, which went into his lungs and might have caused
infection leading to A.R.D.S. and thereby causing aspirational pneumonia.
It is further submitted that none of the accused persons have been attributed
any specific injury and the co-accused of the petitioner namely Hardik
Chawla, who is similarly placed as the present petitioner, has been granted
the concession of regular bail vide order dated 13.12.2021 (Annexure P-7)
passed in CRM-M-24108-2020 after considering the fact that he has been in
custody for more than 2 years. It has been submitted that the custody period
of the petitioner is more than 3 years. It is further submitted that one of the
injured Balwinder has been examined as PW.6, and he has been declared to
be hostile. It is also submitted that PW.7, namely Manish (cousin of the
deceased), PW.8 Ramesh Kumar (father of the deceased) and Virender
PW.12 (cousin of the deceased) have also been declared hostile in the
present case.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted
that the petitioner is involved in two other cases and does not deserve the
2 of 4
concession of regular bail as he, along with other co-accused, had
participated in the offence which resulted in the death of Amit Thakur and
injuries to the complainant and one Balwinder.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has submitted
that the petitioner is on bail in both the cases and has relied upon a
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 and the bail
application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the
petitioner is involved in another case. 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.
The petitioner is in custody since 10.8.2019 and there are 35
witnesses, out of which only 17 witnesses have been examined, and thus,
the trial is likely to take time. The co-accused of the petitioner namely,
Hardik Chawla, who is similarly placed as the present petitioner, has been
granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 13.12.2021
(Annexure P-7) passed by this Court in CRM-M-24108-2020. There are
debatable questions in the present case including the question with respect
to the cause of death of the deceased and the same would finally be
adjudicated during the course of the trial.
3 of 4
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the
present petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner shall be
released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction
of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, and subject to his being not
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 bail application.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
September 06, 2022
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
