Rajender Alias Raja vs State Of Haryana
2023 Latest Caselaw 8888 P&H

               CRM-M-19534-2022                                                                    -1-
               222


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                         AT CHANDIGARH
                                                                ****

CRM-M-19534-2022 Date of Decision: 02.06.2023

Rajender @ Raja ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER

Present: Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate for Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG, Haryana for the respondent/State.

Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

HARSH BUNGER J.

1. Petitioner (Rajender @ Raja) has filed the present petition under

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail

in case bearing FIR No.175 dated 19.08.2021, under Sections 120-B, 148,

149, 201, 302 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station

Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad.

2. Custody certificate dated 27.03.2023 of the petitioner is filed by

learned State counsel in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all

just exceptions.

3. Briefly, the aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaint of HIMANI GUPTA 2023.06.03 20:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

one Ajit Singh, wherein he stated that he along with his father (Hanuman

Singh), mother (Saroj Rani) and sister (Monika) live in Dhani, situated in

fields. On 17.08.2021, there was an engagement function of complainant's

sister in the said Dhani, where several relatives were present, who left on

18.08.2021 and on the same day, complainant's sister Monika also went with

his maternal uncle Vinod s/o Chander Bhan to Hisar. Subsequently at about

11:00 A.M., when the complainant told his father that he is also leaving for

studies to Hisar then his father expressed fear to his own life at the hands of

Bhoop Singh Dudi, Pardeep, Krishan, Bajrang, Vikram, Chhotu Ram, Vijay

@ Molu, Dholu, Rajender (petitioner), Satish, Jaivir and Sajjan and told the

complainant that on the said date (18.08.2021), it was the turn of his father

to water the fields from 8:20 P.M. to 10:00 P.M., however, it depends upon

the aforesaid Bhoop Singh Dudi and others that at what time they would

allow the petitioner's father to water the fields as the said persons had earlier

also threatened to kill him with regard to the water timings at night. It was

also stated by complainant's father that the aforesaid persons can cause him

injuries or even kill him and the complainant should consider this thing.

However at 1:45 P.M., the complainant left for Hisar and on the morning of

19.08.2021, he received a call from his maternal uncle Vinod and his brother

Naresh Dui about the death of his father. It was told to him that dead body of

his father was lying in the General Hospital, Fatehabad and several injuries

were caused on his body with deadly weapons. It is stated in the complaint

that the dead body of complainant's father was brought to the Hospital by

Rajender as a case of road side accident. When the complainant along with

his maternal uncle Vinod, brothers Sajjan Kumar and Naresh Kumar and

other relatives reached the Hospital, they found several injuries on the head,

arm, back and feet of the body of complainant's father. It is further stated HIMANI GUPTA 2023.06.03 20:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

that the death of complainant's father did not occur due to some road

accident, however, the complainant is fully confident that as informed by

his father, the aforementioned persons, namely Bhoop Singh Dudi, Pardeep,

Krishan, Bajrang, Vikram, Chhotu Ram, Vijay @ Molu, Dholu, Rajender

(petitioner), Satish, Jaivir and Sajjan, after hatching a conspiracy, committed

the murder of complainant's father Hanuman Singh with deadly weapons

over water dispute.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

innocent and he has been falsely implicated in case FIR No.175 dated

19.08.2021. It is submitted that there is no direct evidence in the form of

eye-witness against the petitioner and the case is based upon falsely created

circumstantial evidence. It is stated that there is no evidence on record to

show that the petitioner was the last seen person accompanying the deceased

(Hanuman Singh).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had

applied for grant of regular bail before the Court of Sessions Judge,

Fatehabad, which was wrongly declined vide order dated 15.03.2022. He

submits that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of one year,

six months and six days (as on 27.03.2023); investigation of case is

complete, challan has been presented and even charges have been framed on

29.10.2022. It is further submitted that out of the total forty seven

prosecution witnesses, only six have been examined by now, thus,

conclusion of trial will take some time and no useful purpose would be

served with further incarceration of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by all the conditions as

may be imposed by this Court or by the trial Court, accordingly prayer for

grant of regular bail is made.

HIMANI GUPTA 2023.06.03 20:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the plea of petitioner

for grant of regular bail on the ground of seriousness and gravity of the

offences. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is involved in

five other cases and he does not enjoy clear antecedents. Learned State

counsel submits that the petitioner has played active role in the crime which

is heinous in nature, relating to murder of father of the complainant namely

Hanuman Singh. It is submitted that there is sufficient material/evidence on

record to prove the complicity of the petitioner in the case. It is stated that as

per the disclosure statement of the co-accused, the petitioner had assaulted

deceased-Hanuman with iron sariya and the petitioner has also suffered a

disclosure statement and got the place of occurrence demarcated. Learned

State counsel has further stated that in case the petitioner is granted bail then

he may tamper with the evidence and influence the material witnesses or

may abscond and flee from justice which may delay trial, accordingly, it is

prayed that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

paper book; status report as well as the custody certificate of the petitioner

handed over by learned State counsel.

8. The instant case relates to the murder of Hanuman Singh (father

of the complainant) who is alleged to have been murdered by the petitioner

along with other co-accused by hatching a criminal conspiracy and being

members of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and in

prosecution of the common object. As per the status report, the petitioner is

stated to have got recovered a motorcycle used in the offence and also the

mobile phone from which a call was made at number 112. The allegations

against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature. As regards the

submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has HIMANI GUPTA 2023.06.03 20:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

suffered long incarceration and hence he be released on bail suffice it to say

that long incarceration cannot be the sole ground for grant of bail specially

in a case of heinous offence of murder like in the present case. In Kalyan

Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2004(2) RCR

(Criminal) 254, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"The condition laid down under Section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for granting bail even under Section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitled the accused to be enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded, in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail."

9. Further, as per the custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to

be involved in five other cases out of which two case FIR's i.e. FIR

No.21/2021 and FIR No.20/2021, dated 07.02.2021 are registered under

Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thus, the apprehension of the

learned State counsel that in case the petitioner is released on bail, then he

may abscond, cannot be brushed aside lightly.

10. Thus, keeping in view the seriousness and gravity of the offence

with likelihood of the petitioner tampering with the prosecution evidence

HIMANI GUPTA and even absconding being there, the petitioner is not entitled for the 2023.06.03 20:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

concession of regular bail in this case. Accordingly, the present petition

under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner,

under Sections 120-B, 148, 149, 201, 302 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code,

registered at Police Station Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad, is dismissed.

11. Nothing stated here-in-above shall be construed as an

expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed

independently of the observations made in the present case which are only

for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.

12. Pending application/s, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

               02.06.2023                                                          (HARSH BUNGER)
               Himani                                                                  JUDGE


                                         1. Whether speaking/reasoned :         Yes/No

                                         2. Whether reportable           :      Yes/No




HIMANI GUPTA
2023.06.03 20:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh