Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Singh Alias Channi vs State Of Haryana on 3 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044787
CRM-M-14966-2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:044787
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
205 CRM-M-14966-2024
Date of Decision :03.04.2024
Kuldeep Singh @ Channi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
Present is the 5th petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in respect of FIR No.119 dated
29.05.2020 registered under Sections 148, 149, 302, 307, 341 506 and 120-B
of the IPC at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
behind the bars since 01.06.2020 and his custody is for more than three and
a half years hence, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of regular bail
especially, when the injury which has been attributed to him was on the
elbow though, with the Gandasi.
Learned State counsel on the other hand submits that the
petitioner has inflicted injuries on the deceased and keeping in view the fact
that Section 148, 149 and 120-B of the IPC have been invoked and once the
petitioner had come with the intention to cause death, the allegations alleged
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044787
CRM-M-14966-2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:044787
against the petitioner are serious so as to grant him the benefit of regular
bail.
Learned State counsel further submits that there are two other
FIRs pending against the petitioner relating to the violation of provisions of
IPC as well as of Prison Act.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
In the present petition, allegations against the petitioner are of
causing death to the victim. As per the sections of the IPC, which have been
invoked coupled with the evidence on the basis of which the challan has
been presented, the same was pre-planned. Not only this, the petitioner was
the member of unlawful assembly and it has already come on record that the
petitioner has attributed two injuries with the sharp edged weapon upon the
victim. Merely the fact that period of custody is more than three and a half
years is not sufficient to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner
by ignoring the other facts, which are also before this Court.
Further, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Kumer Singh Versus State of Rajasthan & another in Criminal
Appeal Nos. 572 and 573 of 2021 decided on 20.07.2021, role of an
individual is not to be seen where Sections 148 & 149 of the IPC have been
invoked coupled with Section 302 of the IPC. Relevant portion of the said
judgment is as under:-
"The submission on behalf of the accused that the
accused were alleged to have been armed with lathis
and therefore they were released on bail is concerned,
at the outset, it is required to be noted that all the
accused are charged for the offences punishable under
Sections 302and 307 read with Section 149of the IPC.
At this stage, the individual role of the accused is not
required to be considered when they are alleged to
have been the part of the unlawful assembly. There
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044787
CRM-M-14966-2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:044787
were 26 injuries found on the dead body of the
deceased and 11 injuries on the injured Vikram Singh
by blunt and sharp weapons. Therefore, merely
because they were armed with lathis cannot be a
ground to release them on bail, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, more particularly when they
are charged for the offences punishable under Sections
302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC as well
as Sections 147and148of the IPC."
Not only this, the petitioner is also involved in other criminal
cases for violation of provisions of the IPC. Further, the petitioner has
violated the prison's rules while in prison. Hence, it can be safely presumed
that in case, the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he will not adhere to the rules
of law as the petitioner is a habitual offender.
Qua the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the other co-accused have been granted the concession of regular bail, it may
be noticed that grant of benefit of regular bail to the other co-accused will
not give right to the petitioner to claim the bail. Nothing has been brought on
record that the petitioner is similarly situated to the other co-accused, who
have been granted the concession of regular bail and, hence, the prayer of
the petitioner that he should be granted concession of regular bail as granted
to the other co-accused, cannot be accepted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case
is a case of version and cross-version.
Once, while submitting the challan due evidence has been
brought on record and charges have been framed against the petitioner under
Section 302 with other sections of the IPC including Sections 120-B, 148
and 149 of the IPC, the same cannot be ignored so as to hold that as of now,
it is a case of version and cross-version.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances recorded
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044787
CRM-M-14966-2024 -4- 2024:PHHC:044787
hereinbefore, no ground to allow the petitioner benefit of regular bail is
made out and the present petition is accordingly dismissed.
However, it is made clear that anything observed herein shall
not be construed to be an expression of any opinion on the merits of the
case.
April 03, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
