Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parkash @ Ashok vs State Of Haryana on 24 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057346
-1-
CRM-M-18478 of 2022
2023:PHHC:057346
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-18478 of 2022
Date of decision: 24.04.2023
Parkash @ Ashok
...........Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439
Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No.274 dated 07.09.2019 under
Sections 392, 397, 506, 379-B, 201, 412, 120-B IPC and Sections 25, 54, 59
of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Kunjpura, Karnal,
District Karnal.
2. Present FIR was registered on the application of complainant
Randeep Maan resident of Mann Farms, Kunjpura Road, Karnal alleging
that on 07.09.2019 at about 12:00 noon, he, his wife Raneet Mann, mother
Kaushalya Mann and four servants were present in their Farm House.
Servant Pawan Kumar was cleaning the courtyard, when two assailants
came at the main door and started enquiring about the owner, when in the
meanwhile Smt. Raneet Mann suddenly came at the terrace and saw that
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057346
CRM-M-18478 of 2022
2023:PHHC:057346
two assailants were trying to forcibly enter in the house by opening the
hook of the main gate she asked the servant to stop them and enquire. She
went inside. Complainant was inside bathroom in the room. He heard
noising of knocking of the door of the room. His wife opened the door. She
saw that their servant Pawan Kumar was outside the door and behind him
two young boys (assailants) were present. Assailants had pushed Pawan
Kumar and barged into the room. One of them, tall in height, had pushed
Raneet Mann, who fell on the ground and cried. Complainant Randeep
Mann came out from the bathroom and saw that both the assailants were
having firearms. One of the assailants had put firearm on the chest of the
complainant and other assailants pointed out firearm at his wife. In the
meanwhile, mother of the complainant cried and asked complainant to come
down. Complainant and his wife, who were held hostage, came down and
saw that there was third assailant, who had put a firearm at Smt. Kaushalya
Mann. Said three assailants had firstly, taken mobile phones of complainant
Randeep Mann and his wife Raneet Mann and Rs.8000/- lying on the table.
Thereafter, assailants had taken out Rs.1,75,000/- and jewelery from the
almirah of the bedroom of Raneet Mann and put it into a carry-bag. Then
assailants had taken out Rs.30,000/- and jewelery from the room of Smt.
Kaushalya Mann. Assailants also searched other rooms. Assailants while
leaving threatened the complainant's family and their servants not to
disclose said incident to anyone, otherwise they would be killed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case as he has
committed no offence. He further submitted that petitioner was not named
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057346
CRM-M-18478 of 2022
2023:PHHC:057346
in the FIR and has been nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure
statement of co-accused Sandeep @ Sonu @ Daljeet, which has no
evidentiary value in the eyes of law. He further submitted that no
identification parade was conducted. He further submitted that
investigation in the present case is complete; challan has been presented;
charges have been framed and out of total 23 prosecution witnesses only
one witness has been examined. He submits that petitioner is in custody
since 05.02.2021. Trial may take a considerable time to conclude.
Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner
behind bars.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel while placing on record
custody certificate has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner. She submitted that petitioner is involved in one more case
bearing FIR No.42 dated 25.01.2020 under Sections 392, 397, 120-B, 412
IPC and Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station
Sector 32/33, Karnal. However, she submitted that investigation in the
present case is complete; challan has been presented; charges have been
framed and out of total 23 prosecution witnesses only one witness has been
examined.
5. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and
another, 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057346
CRM-M-18478 of 2022
2023:PHHC:057346
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."
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
7. Keeping in view the custody of the petitioner, which is 02 years
02 months and 18 days; investigation is complete; challan has been
presented; charges have been framed and out of 23 prosecution witnesses,
only one prosecution witness has been examined and trial is likely to take a
considerable time, however, without commenting upon the merits of the
case, the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail during trial on
his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa
Magistrate/Trial Court.
8. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
24.04.2023 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057346
4 of 4
