Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurbaz @ Kala vs State Of Haryana on 28 September, 2022
CRM-M-14676-2022 (O&M) -1-
228
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-14676-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision : 28.09.2022
Gurbaz @ Kala ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. R.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG, Haryana.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
This is the second petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.427 dated 25.02.2020
registered under Sections 394, 397, 307, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (Sections 397, 307, 120-B of IPC have been added later on) and Section
25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Ambala City, District Ambala.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the
present case, the FIR has been registered on the complaint of Jarnail Singh to
the effect that three young boys stopped his vehicle and snatched Rs.25,000/-
from his pocket and had also caused injuries to him. It is further submitted
that the said complainant has been examined as PW3 and in his examination,
he had specifically stated that he had seen the accused persons, who were
present in the Court, which included the present petitioner but the same were
not the persons who had fired gun shot upon him and he had not identified
the said persons as their faces were covered with clothes and has thus, been
1 of 4
CRM-M-14676-2022 (O&M) -2-
declared to be hostile. It is contended that the petitioner is in custody since
26.07.2020 (2 years, 2 months and 2 days) and there are 27 prosecution
witnesses, out of which, only 7 witnesses have been examined as yet and
thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take time. It is further contended that
the complainant is now keeping good health and that earlier bail application
of the petitioner was withdrawn on 08.03.2022 and even, thereafter, a
sufficient period of time has elapsed but the trial has still not been concluded.
Reference has been made to zimni order dated 16.03.2022 (Annexure P-5) to
show that bailable warrants have been issued against PW SI Sanjay Kumar,
on account of his non-appearance and also order dated 23.05.2022 (Annexure
P-7) to show that in spite of the fact that PW6 SI Sanjay Kumar was bound
down, he had not come present on the said date and on 23.08.2022, the Court
time was over, thus, no witness had been examined.
On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the
present petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner and has submitted
that the petitioner is involved in several other cases also and is a habitual
offender. It is further submitted that the petitioner along with co-accused had
caused injuries to the complainant and had also snatched Rs.25,000/- from
him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal to the abovesaid
argument, 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 and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be
rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in another case.
2 of 4
CRM-M-14676-2022 (O&M) -3-
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.
In the present case, the petitioner is in custody since 26.07.2020
(2 years, 2 months and 2 days) and investigation is complete and the challan
has already been presented and out of 27 prosecution witnesses, only 7
witnesses have been examined as yet and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely
to take time. The earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as
withdrawn on 08.03.2022 and even, thereafter, a substantial amount of time
has elapsed but the trial has not been concluded. A perusal of zimni order
dated 16.03.2022 (Annexure P-5) would show that bailable warrants had
been issued against PW SI Sanjay Kumar as he was not present. Further, on
23.05.2022, said PW6 SI Sanjay Kumar was not present in spite of having
been bound down and HC Ranjeet Singh and ESI Dalbir Singh also did not
come present in spite of service. On 23.08.2022, although, PW-Ranjit Singh
was present but his statement could not be recorded as the Court time was
over and thus, the case was adjourned to 04.10.2022. The FIR has been
registered on the complaint of Jarnail Singh who had stated that three young
boys, at gun point, had snatched Rs.25,000/- from him. The said Jarnail
Singh has been examined as PW3 and in his statement, he had specifically
3 of 4
CRM-M-14676-2022 (O&M) -4-
stated that he does not identify the persons as their faces were covered with
clothes and that he had seen the accused persons including the present
petitioner, who were present in the Court, and they were not the persons who
had fired upon him and accordingly, was declared to be hostile.
Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances as well
as law laid down in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi's case (Supra), the
present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered 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 bail application.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand
disposed of in view of the abovesaid judgment.
28.09.2022 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
