Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep vs State Of Haryana on 27 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060209
CRM-M-19750-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:060209
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
228
CRM-M-19750-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 27.04.2023
KULDEEP
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. GGS Rai, DAG Haryana.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case of FIR No.325 dated 24.09.2022,
registered under Sections 323, 325, 341, 367, 506 and 34 IPC, at Police Station
Bhuna District Fatehabad.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for the last
6 months. Initially the FIR was registered under Section 307 IPC and Arms Act,
however, during investigation the said sections were deleted. The challan had
been presented on 30.12.2022. Charges have not been framed. In all, there are 15
prosecution witnesses. There are two more cases against the petitioner, which are
of the year 1993 and 1995, after which no other case was registered against him,
except the present. In this regard he relies on the judgment dated 16.01.2012
passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.159 of
2012 titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others,
2012(2) SCC 382. Co-accused has been granted regular bail vide order dated
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060209
CRM-M-19750-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:060209
28.02.2023.
3. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there were
allegations of having kidnapped the complainant and given him beatings. He is
however, unable to controvert the submissions with regard to custody, stage of
trial, he being not involved in any other case except the ones mentioned, and that
co-accused has been granted bail but they were implicated based on disclosure
statement.
4. Heard.
5. Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India in the case of Maulana Mohd.
Amir Rashadi (Supra) had observed as under:-
"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. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observations made
in the aforesaid judgment, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last
6 months; co-accused having been granted regular bail; challan had been
presented on 30.12.2022; charges are yet to be framed; in all there are 15
prosecution witnesses; the trial is likely to take a considerable time, his further
detention behind bars would not serve any useful purpose, thus the present
petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed.
7. As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered
to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to his not being
required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:-
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060209
CRM-M-19750-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:060209
1. The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.
3. The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every
date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.
4. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of
which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected
of.
5. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce,
threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any
manner.
6. The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.
7. The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to the
Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the
conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks
to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior
intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.
8. The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the Trial
Court forthwith and in case, he does not have the passport, he shall
furnish a specific affidavit in this regard.
8. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the
aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as
granted to the petitioner by this order.
9. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein
above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be
construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed
independently of the aforesaid observations.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
April 27, 2023
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060209
3 of 3
