Akshay vs State Of Haryana
2023 Latest Caselaw 12519 P&H

                                                       Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103750




                                                  2023:PHHC:103750
                                                                                 -1-
CRM-M-58587-2022


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                           CRM-M-58587-2022
                                           Date of decision: 09.08.2023

AKSHAY
                                                             ...Petitioner

                                    Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

                                                         .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:-   Mr. V.B.Godara, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Rupinder Singh Jhand, Addl. A. G. Haryana.

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)

1. Through this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case

FIR No.311 dated 01.08.2019, registered at Police Station Azad Nagar,

Hisar, District Hisar, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 302, 303,

109, 120-B and 180 IPC.

2. Status report dated 10/17.07.2023 by way of affidavit of the

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Hisar, filed in the Registry,

is taken on record.

3. As per the prosecution version, the petitioner and the co-

accused had committed the murder of one Ravinder and caused injuries to

Talwinder and Harjeet in the jail premises.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner

was not named in the FIR, but has been indicted on the disclosure

statement of the co-accused; that as per the prosecution version, it was co-

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103750

2023:PHHC:103750

CRM-M-58587-2022

accused, namely, Jagdeep @ Dukhi and Pawan @ Poni, who had attacked

upon deceased-Ravinder with awl (sua) and the petitioner has been

allegedly attributed kick and fist blows to Ravinder (since deceased) and

injured, namely, Talwinder and Harjeet; that the petitioner has been in

custody since 13.08.2019, and that out of 41 prosecution witnesses, none

has been examined so far. It is further submitted that co-accused, namely,

Ravinder, Binder, Krishan @ Boxer stand enlarged on bail by this Court.

So far as other cases registered or pending against the petitioner, are

concerned, he is facing trial in 04 cases whereas he has been acquitted in 07

cases. It is further submitted that merely on the basis of criminal

antecedents, the claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected. In support of his

contentions, learned counsel relies upon the judgments rendered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2012, titled as

'Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, decided on

16.01.2012, and 'Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P & Anr., Law Finder

DocId#1670858.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, while opposing the

grant of bail to the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had actively

participated in the occurrence and that the petitioner being accused of the

offence under Section 302 IPC, is not entitled to the concession of bail.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. The petitioner was not named in the FIR, but has been indicted

on the disclosure statement of the co-accused. Only kick and fist blows on

the person of Ravinder (since deceased) and injured, namely, Talwinder

and Harjeet, have been attributed to the petitioner. As stated above, co-

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103750

2023:PHHC:103750

CRM-M-58587-2022

accused, namely, Ravinder, Binder, Krishan @ Boxer stand enlarged on

bail by this Court. So far as other cases registered or pending against the

petitioner, are concerned, he is facing trial in 04 cases whereas he has been

convicted in 07 cases. Moreover, pendency of several criminal cases by

itself is not ground to refuse the prayer for bail and in this regard reference

is made to Prabhakar Tewari's case (supra).

8. The petitioner has been in custody since 13.08.2019. Out of

41 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. Trial is unlikely

to conclude any time soon. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served

by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

9. In view of the above, without commenting anything on the

merits, lest it should prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is

allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his

furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial

Court/Duty Magistrate.

09.08.2023                                     (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
parveen kumar                                          JUDGE

                Whether reasoned/speaking?       Yes/No
                Whether reportable?              Yes/No




                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103750

                                      3 of 3