Naresh Alias Naresh Kumar Alias ... vs State Of Haryana
2023 Latest Caselaw 15044 P&H

                                                            Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115875




202
                                           2023:PHHC:115875
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

                                         CRM-M-25314-2023
                                         DECIDED ON: 04.09.2023

NARESH ALIAS NARESH KUMAR ALIAS MIRCHI
                                     .....PETITIONER

                                       VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA
                                                            .....RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present: Mr. Harvinder Singh Mann, Advocate and Mr. Avneet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Singh Mann, Addl. AG, Haryana.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 439

Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.18, dated 13.01.2022, under

Sections 302, 323, 345 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Tohana, District

Fatehabad.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that initially the petitioner

was not named in the FIR, but has been arrayed as an accused subsequently on the

basis of disclosure statement of main accused namely Prem Singh, who is the father

of the petitioner. It is also pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that the cause

of death as per MLR is injury No.4 inflicted on the chest and that has been

attributed to Prem Singh, whereas no other injury according to the MLR is coming

forth, which is attributed to the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. He is alleged

to have been roped in the instant FIR merely with the allegation that he was

accompanying and had given legs and fist blows on the body of the deceased.

3. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner,

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115875

which is taken on record. According to the custody certificate, the petitioner is

behind the bars for the last 1 year, 6 months and 13 days. He contends that the

petitioner had given legs and fist blow on the body of the deceased, while he was

lying on the ground, but could not dispute the fact on a specific question put by the

Court that injury No.4 i.e., on the chest was the cause of death is attributed to the

co-accused Prem Singh. Apart from that there is no other argument raised by the

learned State counsel.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and after going

through the record available before this Court, it is apparent that the cause of death

has been recorded as injury No.4, which is on the chest and admittedly attributed to

the Prem Singh not the petitioner. Apart from that complainant stands examined and

out of total 19 prosecution witnesses, only 1 stands examined so far, since the

framing of charges on 03.08.2022, which is suffice to the mind of this Court that

trial is likely to take long time.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts as well as the custody period i.e., 1 year

6 months and 13 days added with the fact that petitioner is a person of clean

antecedents, who is not involved in any other case of any nature and in the instant

FIR, there is no role whatsoever attributed except giving legs and fist blows as per

the prosecution case, but the MLR is also not corroborating the said injury, which

for the purpose of considering the petition for regular bail is good enough to hold

that petitioner deserves to be released, who cannot be detained behind the bars for

an indefinite period, which would also violate the principle of right to speedy trial

and expeditious disposal under Article 21 of Constitution of India, as has been time

and again discussed by this Court, while relying the judgment of the Apex Court

passed in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R.

(Criminal) 131.

6. In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115875

is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to

the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

7. The present petition is, hereby, allowed.

8. However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall not be

construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

                                                (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
04.09.2023                                            JUDGE
Meenu



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




                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115875

                                       3 of 3