Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay vs State Of Haryana on 3 April, 2024
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill
2024:PHHC:044943
In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
CRM-M-15079-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 03.04.2024
Vijay ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present:- Ms. Nehha Dewan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana.
*****
FIR DATE POLICE STATION OFFENCES
NO.
188 20.06.2023 Sadar, District Kaithal 323, 307 and 34 IPC (Section
307 IPC deleted and Section
302 and 212 IPC added later
on)
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking
grant of regular bail in respect of aforementioned FIR.
2. The FIR was lodged at the instance of Mohinder Rana, wherein it is
alleged that on 19.6.2023 at about 7:30 p.m. his brother Raj Singh had
left the house so as to meet Birbal Bibla. However, Raj Singh did not
return back and at about 11:00 p.m. Ghanshyam came to the
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-15079-2024 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:044943
complainant's house and informed that Raj Singh was lying on the
road in an inebriated condition. Upon receipt of said information, the
complainant went to the spot and brought his brother for treatment at
Shah Hospital, Kaithal, where the doctor apprised them that
complainant's brother had sustained a deep injury on his head. The
complainant made inquiries to gather information upon which Birbal
Bibla, Ishwar and Ghanshyam told the complainant that at about 9:00
p.m. Raj Singh had an altercation with Sanjeev, Rajender and Vijay
and in the said altercation, said persons had hit Raj Singh with some
hard object on his head.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has falsely been
implicated in the present case and that falsity would be evident from
the fact that the complainant Mohinder (PW-3) as well as eye-witness
Birbal (PW-4), when examined in the witness box did not support the
case of prosecution.
4. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submitted that it is
apparently a case where the petitioner has been able to win over the
witnesses or has been able to intimidate them and that since the
petitioner is specifically named in the FIR, his complicity is clearly
evident. It has however, been informed that the petitioner has been
behind bars for the last 9 months and 12 days.
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions addressed before this
Court and has also gone through the statements of PW-3 and PW-4
(Annexure P-12).
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-15079-2024 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:044943
6. A perusal of statements annexed as Annexure P-12 indicate that the
witnesses have not fully supported the case of prosecution. The
petitioner otherwise has been behind bars since the last about 9
months and 12 days and is not wanted in any other case. Under these
circumstances particularly when the material witnesses have not fully
supported and also on account of the substantial custody, further
detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The
petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be
released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to
the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty
Magistrate concerned.
03.04.2024 ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
mohan JUDGE
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
integrity of this order/judgment
