Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ghasitu Alias Sonu vs State Of Haryana on 5 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046687
208 2024:PHHC:046687
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-12981-2024
DECIDED ON: 05.04.2024
GHASITU ALIAS SONU .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurbir Singh Dhillon, AAG Haryana.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.633, dated 17.09.2022, under
Sections 302, 203, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Krishna Gate Thanesar, District
Kurukshetra.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
nominated in the present FIR on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by co-
accused namely Rahul @ Golu, who has been granted the concession of regular bail by
this Court vide order dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure P-9) passed in CRM-M-11221-2024
by this Court and claims parity.
3. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner,
which is taken on record. He prays for dismissal of the present stating that the
petitioner is involved in one another case, therefore, does not deserve the concession of
bail at least at this stage, though could not controvert the fact that he is at par with the
co-accused namely Rahul @ Golu.
4. Be that as it may, considering the custody period suffered by the petitioner
i.e., 1 year, 6 months and 8 days and in the other case, he is on bail, as is evident from
the custody certificate, co-accused namely Rahul @ Golu has already been granted the
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046687
concession of bail added with the fact that conclusion of trial shall take sufficient time,
as out of total 35 prosecution witnesses, only 8 have been examined so far after
framing of charges on 03.10.2023, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the
petitioner behind bars for an uncertain period, which would amount to infringement of
his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is
against the principle "bail is a rule and jail is an exception", as has been time and
again discussed by this Court, while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court
passed in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 131.
5. As far as the contention of learned State counsel with regard to pendency
of other cases is concerned, reliance can be placed upon the order of this Court
rendered in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as "Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of
Punjab" decided on 02.03.2023, wherein, this Court observed that pendency of other
FIRs involving the accused-petitioner cannot be a predicament to consider the case for
anticipatory bail or regular bail, as the evidence of the material
involved in those FIRs can be treated in those cases alone and not material in instant
FIR against the accused-petitioner to hold him guilty.
6. In light of the above discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner 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)
05.04.2024 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
2 of 2
