Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yogesh @ Yogesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 15 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145096
226 2023:PHHC:145096
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-47785-2023
Date of Decision:15.11.2023
Yogesh @ Yogesh Kumar ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana ...Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present : Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Sheenu Sura, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 439
Cr.PC with a prayer to grant regular bail in case FIR No. 269 dated 26.08.2020
registered under Sections 302,34,380 and 457 of IPC (392 of IPC added later on
and 380 and 457 of IPC have been delted), Police Station Bhuna, District
Fatehabad.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 26.08.2020, the information
was received in the police Station regarding the murder of Jagdish Chander son
of Chiranji Lal, and on getting the said information, the police officials reached
at the spot. Shiv Kumar son of Jagdish Chander, since deceased, was found
present at the spot. As per him, at about 8/8.30 p.m. on 25.08.2020, his father
Jagdish Chander slept in front of shop, after taking a meal and some unknown
persons had committed murder of his father by assaulting him. As per the
complainant, after killing his father, theft was committed from the drawer of the
shop and the cameras were broken. At about 5.45 am, on 26.08.2020, Ravi,
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145096
-2
neighbour informed him about the incident and whole family reached at the
spot.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was
not named in the present case and has been involved on the basis of the
disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused Mandeep. He was also named
one of the assailants by the complainant in his supplementary statement on
27.08.2020. Learned counsel further contends that no recovery was effected
from the present petitioner and there was no evidence to connect the petitioner
with the alleged crime. As per him, the petitioner is in custody since
30.08.2020, i.e. for the last about three years and two months. The challan has
already been presented in the present case and out of total 21 witnesses, no
witness has been examined so far. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also
referred to the findings recorded by this Court in CRM-M-18443-2022 titled as
"Mandeep @ Monu Vs. State of Haryana" (Annexure P-2) which are as
follows:-
The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of
well-settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each
case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting bail, no
doubt the seriousness of the charge is one of the relevant
considerations, which should be taken into account, but this Court
also has to take into consideration the circumstances, which are
peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the
presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of
the witnesses being tampered with, custody of the under trial,
chances of threatening the witnesses etc. In the present case, no
doubt the allegations levelled by the present petitioner are very
serious in nature, however, this Court cannot be oblivious of the
fact that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on
27.08.2020 and the petitioner is continuing in custody as an under
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145096
-3
trial for the last more than 03 years. Once an accused continues
in under trial for such a long period, there is no doubt that his
rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are violated,
which is the most basic right of all Fundamental Rights. Even
otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held a number of
judgments that an under trial prisoner cannot be detained in jail
custody to an indefinite period and every person, detained or
arrested is entitled to speedy trial. This Court is conscious of the
fact that on the one hand, the petitioner continues to be in custody
for the last more than 03 years, whereas on the other hand, no
witness has been examined, out of total 21 witnesses and the
learned trial Court may take considerable time in concluding the
trial proceedings.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed
the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the
petitioner was actively involved in the commission of crime and three more
cases have been registered against the present petitioner, however, she admits
that the petitioner is on bail in all these cases.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6. Thus, in view of the above discussion and also the fact that the
petitioner has been in custody for the last more than three years and two months
, further custody of the petitioner will serve no meaningful purpose.
7. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition
is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail pending trial on his
furnishing bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/
Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145096
-4
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the
Court or to any other authority.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain present before the Court on the
dates fixed for hearing of the case.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself from the Court
proceedings except on the prior permission of the Court
concerned.
(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, (if already
not surrendered), and in case he is not holder of the same, he shall
swear an affidavit to that effect.
(v) The petitioner shall also file his affidavit before the concerned
Court, mentioning his ordinary place of residence and number of
mobile phone, which shall be used by him during the pendency of
the trial. In case of change of place of residence/mobile number,
he shall share the details with the concerned Court/learned Trial
Court.
(vi) In case, the petitioner is involved in any other criminal
activity, during the pendency of the trial, it shall be viewed
seriously.
(vii) The concerned Court may insist on two heavy local sureties
and may also impose any other condition, in accordance with law,
while accepting the bails bonds and surety bonds of the petitioner.
(viii) The petitioner shall report every 1st Monday and 3rd Monday
of English calender month before the concerned SHO till the
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145096
-5
conclusion of the trial and SHO shall mark his presence by making
an entry in the Rojnamcha.
8. In case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions mentioned
above, it shall be viewed seriously and the concession of bail granted to him
shall be liable to be cancelled and the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an
application in this regard.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
15.11.2023 JUDGE
hitesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145096
5 of 5
