Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep vs State Of Haryana on 9 August, 2023
CRM-M-37588-2023 2023:PHHC:103525
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
231 CRM-M-37588-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 09.08.2023
Sandeep
....Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present: Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.
*****
ARUN MONGA, J. (Oral)
After being declined bail by the trial Court, petitioner before this
Court seeks his release as undertrial in case bearing FIR No.285 dated 24.06.2023
registered under Sections 120-B, 307, 323, 506 read with Section 34of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and section 27 of Arms Act, at Police
Station,Sadar Jind, District Jind, Haryana.
2. Per prosecution version, on 24.06.2023, a telephonic information
was received regarding a heated altercation leading to firing incidentand causing
injury to a person by hitting him with a tractor in village Khokhri, Kandela Road.
On receiving this information, police reached the place of occurrence.
2.1. Police recorded the statement of Satish son of Satbir Singh. He
stated that on 24.06.2023 Sandeep along with his son Vinit and Nikhil son of his
brother-in-lawwereto plough his fields with their tractor-trailer without his
permission. A property dispute was already going on between them. At about
12:00 noon when he reached the fields, he came to know that Sandeep (petitioner),
Vinit and Nikhil had already ploughed the fields. When complainantwas later
riding motorcycle onwayto Police Station, SadarJindVinit deliberately hit the
sharp Phalla of tractor trailerwith motorcycle which pierced his leg and dragged
him with tractor.Manjit son of Shishpal came there along with other
VANDANA
2023.08.10 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-37588-2023 2023:PHHC:103525
persons.Meanwhile, petitioner Sandeep along with his wife Seema and other
relatives came to the spot in an Alto Car. Sandeep took out his pistol and also fired
a shot. Bullet missed the target and brushed passed the head of one Tejbir.
Complainant was taken to Government Hospital, Jind, from where he was
referred to PGIMS,Rohtak.FIR was registered. During investigation, petitioner
Sandeep surrendered his licensed pistol along with one live cartridge and the
Licenseof pistol. Same were sealed and seized by the investigating agency.
Petitioner was arrested 25.06.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that land dispute is going
on between the parties as wife of petitioner purchased 2 acres of land in a joint
khewat. Partition was effected, but yet complainant party is interfering in the
possession of land belonging to the petitioner's family.
3.1. Learned counsel for petitioner further urges that it is a case of
version and cross version. In fact, petitioner is the victim. Merely because he has a
licensed weapon, false allegation has been made against him that he had used the
same to fire gunshot. Whereas, it is the complainant party, who had attacked son
of the petitioner resulting into the unfortunate incident of the two groups indulging
in aggression and counter aggression.
3.2 He further contends thatno injury is attributed to the petitioner and
the only allegation is that he fired one shot with his licensed weapon in the air,
which did not hit anyone. Thus no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out.
He points out that the gun, which is alleged to have used in the commission of
alleged offence, is a licensed weapon. He further submits that in fact
complainant/injured submitted before the medical officer where he was taken for
treatment that he had suffered injuries while driving a motor bike. He was hit
accidently by cultivator which is attached as an agricultural equipment with the
tractor. He refers to medical report (Annexure P-4) wherein doctor has clearly
VANDANA
2023.08.10 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-37588-2023 2023:PHHC:103525
mentioned that the reason for injury suffered by the complainant was that he met
with an accident while driving bike with tractor (Agricultural injury).
3.3. He further submits that petitioner isan agriculturist by profession and
sole breadwinner of his family and has one minor son and wife to look after.
Petitioner is not involved in any other case.
4. On the other hand, learned State counselopposes the bail petition.
On instructions from ASI Mahender Singh,he submits that petitioner has
committed a serious offence and he is the main accused who has been attributed
injury of Section 307 IPC. However, he admits that no other case is pending
against him.Learned State counsel further submits that co-accused Seema and
Vinit have been granted the relief of interim bail by this Court. Pursuant thereto,
they havethough joined the investigation on 05.08.2023, but they are not
cooperating in the investigation.
5. I have heard rival contentions of learned counsels for the parties and
have gone through the case file.
6. On a Court query, learned State counsel submits that challan is yet to
be presented. Petitioner is in judicial custody. He has already been interrogated
and investigation is stated to be complete qua petitioner. He is thus not required
for further custodial interrogation. Bail allows an accused to maintain his freedom
until his guilt or innocence is determined. Allegations against petitioner are a
matter of trial at this stage.Commencement/conclusion of trial is still likely to take
long time. Whereas, petitioner has already been languishing in jail for the last01
month and 14 days in preventive custody, being behind bars since25.06.2023.
7. Petitioner is being kept in preventive custody merely on an
unfounded suspicion that if he is let out, he may either tamper with evidence
and/or influence witnesses.
VANDANA
2023.08.10 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-37588-2023 2023:PHHC:103525
8. Petitioner is stated to be having family responsibilities,fixed abode
and clean antecedents, he poses no flight risk or threat to the society at large.
9. Considering the overall scenario and without commenting on merits
of the case, the instant petition is allowed. I am of the view that no useful purpose
would be served to keep petitioner in further preventive custody in instant case.
10. Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his
furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate/IllaqaMagistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be.
11. In case, petitioner is found to be involved or gets involved in any
offence while on bail, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of his
bail in the instant case.
12. It is made clear that any observations and/or submissions noted
hereinabove shall not have any effect on merits the case as the same are for the
limited purpose of hearing the instant bail petition alone and learned trial Court
shall proceed without being influenced with this order.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA)
JUDGE
09.08.2023
vandana
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
VANDANA
2023.08.10 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
