Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pala Ram vs State Of Haryana on 4 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100643
CRM-M-40711-2022 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:100643
- 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
210
CRM-M-40711-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 04.08.2023
Pala Ram
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. B.S. Virk, Sr. DAG Haryana
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.90 dated 27.06.2018,
registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 307, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 27 of
Arms Act, at Police Station Rajound, District Kaithal.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for the last
2 years and about 6 months. He has no concern otherwise with the co-accused and
the complainant, the land dispute being inter se them. As per the allegations in the
FIR, the petitioner had provided a pistol to co-accused-Chatterpal, who allegedly
fired at the injured. The weapon has been recovered. The other co-accused, who
were also a part of unlawful assembly, have been granted bail by this Court vide
orders dated 05.10.2018, 16.11.2018, 29.11.2018 and 18.12.2018. Though, the
petitioner is involved in other cases, however, is on bail. Charges were framed on
28.07.2021, but out of 52 prosecution witnesses, only 10 have been examined. In
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100643
CRM-M-40711-2022 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:100643
- 2-
this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble The Supreme Court in
Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.
3. The custody certificate dated 03.08.2023 has been filed by learned
State counsel. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for the last 2 years, 5
months and 16 days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are
serious allegations against the petitioner of having provided the pistol to the co-
accused, which was used by him for causing injury to the injured-Prem Singh @
Billu and that the petitioner is a habitual offender. He is, however unable to
controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case, co-accused having
been granted bail and the petitioner being on bail in the other cases.
5. Heard.
6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi (Supra) had held that, "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." Reiterating in
Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, it was
observed that, "The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are
several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves
cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail."
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that
the petitioner is in custody for the last 2 years, 5 months and 16 days; on bail in
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100643
CRM-M-40711-2022 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:100643
- 3-
other cases; co-accused having been granted bail; though charges were framed on
28.07.2021, however, only 10 out of 52 prosecution witnesses have yet been
examined; the trial is likely to take a considerable time, thus his further
incarceration would not serve any useful purpose, the present petition for grant of
regular bail deserves to be allowed.
8. 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:-
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during
the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the
prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each
and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific
order of Court.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.
(vii) 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.
(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the trial Court.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other
condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100643
CRM-M-40711-2022 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:100643
- 4-
petitioner.
9. 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.
10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein
are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as
an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of
the aforesaid observations.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
August 04, 2023
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100643
4 of 4
