Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raju vs State Of Haryana on 12 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119618
CRM-M-43109-2023 (O&M) [1] 2023:PHHC:119618
228
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-43109-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 12.09.2023
Raju
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Manvinder Singh Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep Joshi, DAG, Haryana.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a second petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.42 dated 16.02.2021
registered under Sections 387, 307, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Section 216 of IPC has been added
later on) at Police Station Kalayat, District Kaithal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is in custody since 05.03.2021 and the investigation is complete
and challan has been presented and there are 37 prosecution witnesses, out
of which, only 13 witnesses have been examined as yet and thus, the
conclusion of trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that the last
bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn at that stage
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119618
CRM-M-43109-2023 (O&M) [2] 2023:PHHC:119618
on 20.12.2022 with directions to the trial Court to expedite the trial but the
trial has not been concluded as yet. It is contended that the present case is a
case of no injury and that the petitioner was not named in the FIR although,
three persons were specifically named in the FIR. It is further contended
that FIR, in the present case, has been registered on the statement of
Shekhar and said Shekhar has been examined as PW1 and in his
examination-in-chief, he has stated that none of the accused persons who
were present in Court that day, had fired upon him and has not supported
the case of the prosecution and has thus, been declared as hostile. It is
further contended that even as per the FIR, it was stated that one person had
fired towards the complainant with an intention to kill but the bullet hit the
stairs and not the complainant and as per the prosecution case, it was Satish
who had fired and not the present petitioner. It is argued that on the basis of
the said facts as well as long custody, the petitioner deserves the concession
of regular bail.
3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the
present petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner and has submitted
that the gang headed by Praveen @ Binny operates to extort money from
the general public and Rs.15 lacs was sought to be extorted from the
complainant in the present case and the present petitioner is part of the said
gang. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and
other FIRs have been registered against him and thus, he does not deserve
the concession of regular bail.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal to the said
argument has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119618
CRM-M-43109-2023 (O&M) [3] 2023:PHHC:119618
"Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and another", reported
as 2012 (2) SCC 382 to contend that the facts and circumstances of the
present case are to be seen and the bail application of the petitioner cannot
be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other
cases. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of
criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent
cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to
find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has
been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of
fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."
5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper book.
6. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances more so
the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 05.03.2021 and the
investigation is complete and challan has been presented and out of 37
prosecution witnesses, only 13 witnesses have been examined and thus, the
conclusion of trial is likely to take time and also the fact that the present
case is a case of no injury and that the petitioner was not named in the FIR
and that the FIR was registered on the statement of Shekhar who has been
examined as PW1 and in his examination-in-chief, he has stated that none of
the accused persons had fired shots from the country made pistol upon him
with an intention to kill and thus, has not supported the case of the
prosecution and also the fact that even as per the prosecution case, it was
Satish (co-accused) who had fired shots and not the present petitioner and
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119618
CRM-M-43109-2023 (O&M) [4] 2023:PHHC:119618
also in view of law laid down in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi's case
(Supra), the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be
released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to him not being
required in any other case.
7. However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by the
petitioner to threaten the complainant or any of the witnesses, then it would
be open to the State to move an application for cancellation of bail granted
to the petitioner.
8. Nothing stated 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 application.
9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.
12.09.2023 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119618
4 of 4
