Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep vs State Of Haryana on 16 December, 2023
Author: Vikas Suri
Bench: Vikas Suri
211 2023:PHHC:161989
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-54180-2023
Date of Decision: 16.12.2023
SANDEEP ....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present: Mr. Kamal Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pawan Jhanda, DAG, Haryana.
FIR Dated Section/s Police Station
No.
393 01.11.2020 |148, 149, 341, 427 & |Sadar Gohana, District
302 IPC Sonipat (Haryana)
VIKAS SURI, J. (Oral)
1. Through the present petition preferred under Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as
Cr.P.C.), petitioner is seeking regular bail in the above captioned FIR.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioner has been in custody since 08.11.2020; the investigation is
complete; challan has been presented; out of 20 prosecution witnesses
cited only 02 have been examined so far and thus, trial is likely to take
time to conclude. The petitioner is not involved in any other case and
has clean antecedents as such. In the above captioned FIR, 12 persons
were arraigned as accused. Initially, six of them were declared
innocent and were, thereafter, summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.,
who have been granted the concession of anticipatory bail. As per the
SANGEETA, 3.5, allegations in the FIR, no specific injury has been attributed to the
order/judgment
CRM-M-54180-2023 2 2023: PHHC:161989
petitioner. It is submitted that co-accused namely Mohit @ Baru and
Amit @ Mitta, against whom the allegations are similar to those made
against the petitioner, have been granted the concession of regular bail
by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.10.2023
passed in CRM-M-9314-2022 and dated 02.11.2023, passed in
CRM-M-53161-2023, respectively. In both the cases, custody period
was 02 years 11 months which is lesser than the custody of the present
petitioner.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the present
petition for grant of regular bail and has placed on record the custody
certificate of the petitioner dated 15.12.2023. It is submitted that the
petitioner along with co-accused Mohit @ Baru had a motive to cause
injury to the deceased and danda has also been recovered from the
present petitioner. The other factual aspects have not been disputed
by the learned State counsel.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the
rival submissions.
5. Considering all the aspects, more particularly the fact that
the petitioner has been incarcerated since 08.11.2020; investigation is
complete; challan has been presented; charges have been framed; out
of total 20 prosecution witnesses cited only 02 have been examined so
far; as also the fact that no specific injury has been attributed to the
petitioner; he is not involved in any other case and the fact that the
petitioner is similarly placed to co-accused Mohit @ Baru and Amit
@ Mitta, who have since been granted the concession of regular bail
20232.20 13:51 by this Court, the petitioner has a case for grant of bail.
I attest to the accuracy a
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CRM-M-54180-2023 3 2023: PHHC:161989
6. Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the
case, the instant bail petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be
released on regular bail, in case not required in any other case, subject
to his furnishing bail-bond and sureties to the satisfaction of
concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
7. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any
threat and shall not influence the trial or any prosecution witnesses in
any manner directly or indirectly.
8. Any observations or submissions noted above shall not
be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and
the trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of material available
on record.
(VIKAS SURI)
December 16, 2023 JUDGE
Sangeeta
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
