Bharat Alias Bhushan vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 10653 P&H

CRM-M-19309-2022                                                      1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                   CHANDIGARH
                      ***

CRM-M-19309-2022 Date of decision : 07.09.2022

Bharat @ Bhushan ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present: Mr.Rakesh Sobti, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular

bail to the petitioner in FIR no.198 dated 24.06.2020 registered under

Sections 302, 450, 120-B, 34 IPC and Sections 25, 54 & 59 of the Arms Act

at Police Station Sanjay Gandhi Memorial (SGM) Nagar, District Faridabad.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner has been in custody since 11.08.2020 and there are 46 witnesses

and none of them have been examined and thus, the trial is likely to take

time. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and

as per the said FIR, the complainant had seen that three persons had gone

into the house with the deceased and then the complainant was informed by

his other brother Raju that three persons had shot at the brother of the

complainant (deceased Praveen) and had killed him and in the

supplementary statement dated 12.07.2020 (Annexure P-2), the complainant

had specified that the said three persons were Sunny, Manjit and Bachi and

the present petitioner was not named therein. Even Raju, who is stated to be 1 of 4

an eye witness, had also got recorded his statement to the effect that it was

the said three persons who had fired at the deceased and the present

petitioner was not named therein. The statement of Ankit was also to the

same effect. It is submitted that Rohit, who is similarly placed as the present

petitioner, has already been granted regular bail by a coordinate Bench of

this Court vide order dated 05.01.2022 passed in CRM-M-48074-2021.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the

present petition for regular bail and has submitted that in the present case,

the petitioner, along with co-accused Rohit, had taken the main accused

back from the place of the occurrence and even as per the call details, the

petitioner was in constant touch with the main accused. It is further

submitted that the petitioner is involved in four other cases. The other facts

have, however, not been disputed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has submitted

that the petitioner is on bail in all the cases 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."

2 of 4

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has

perused the paper book.

The petitioner has been in custody since 11.08.2020 and there

are 46 witnesses and none of them have been examined and thus, the trial is

likely to take time and as per the said FIR, the petitioner has not been

named therein and the deceased Praveen had been shot by three boys and as

per the supplementary statement of the complainant dated 12.07.2020, the

said three boys were Sunny, Manjit and Bachi and the present petitioner was

not even named therein. Even statements of eye witnesses Raju and Ankit

have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and both the said witnesses

have also named the above said three persons as the persons, who had fired

at the deceased and not the present petitioner. The co-accused Rohit has

already been granted regular bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide

order dated 05.01.2022 passed in CRM-M-48074-2021 and the case of the

petitioner is stated to be on a similar footing as that of the said Rohit.

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 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

3 of 4

of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose

of adjudicating the present bail petition.

                                                    (VIKAS BAHL)
                                                       JUDGE
September 07, 2022
Davinder Kumar
                 Whether speaking / reasoned                       Yes/No
                 Whether reportable                                Yes/No




                                    4 of 4