Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh vs State Of Haryana on 9 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048392
CRM-M-6096-2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:048392
218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-6096-2024
Date of Decision: 09.04.2024
Rakesh ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana ...Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present : Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocate,
Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate,
Mr. H.S.Sidhu, Advocate,
Mr. Robin Singh Bhullar, Advocate and
Mr. Jashandeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Sheenu Sura, DAG, Haryana.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 439 of
the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant regular bail in case FIR No.81 dated
05.03.2021 registered under Sections 365, 379 of IPC (Sections 323, 457, 380,
506, 201, 302, 120-B, 34 of IPC were added later on), at Police Station
Industrial Sector-29, District Panipat.
2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has been falsely involved in the present case by his brother-in-law, Deepak with
some ulterior motive. He further contends that the co-accused namely Ved
Parkash @ Bed Parkash has already been granted the concession of regular bail
by the trial Court. He further contends that in the present case, the post-mortem
on the dead body of Roshi Devi, since deceased, was conducted, however, the
cause of death in the present case is highly debatable. Still further, the entire
prosecution case was based on the testimonies of Preeti, Simran and Deepak.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048392
CRM-M-6096-2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:048392
During the course of trial, the abovestated witnesses were examined as PW-5
Preeti, PW-6 Simran and PW-7 Deepak (Annexures P-5 to P-7) and the said
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel
further submits that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on
08.03.2021 and is in custody for the last 03 years and 01 month. He further
contends that only 11 witnesses, out of total 23 witnesses, have been examined
so far and the conclusion of the trial may take quite a long time. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgments passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Ranjan Dwivedi Vs. CBI, through
the Director General, 2012(8) SCC 495; 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 880" and
"Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others v. Public Prosecutor", AIR 1978 SC
429.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed
the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that
the petitioner is the main accused and he had caused injuries on the person of
Roshni Devi and she had succumbed to the injuries finally. However, she does
not dispute the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 3
years and the petitioner is the first offender.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
5. In the present case, the petitioner is continuing in custody since last
03 years and 01 month. No doubt, the allegations levelled against the present
petitioner are serious in nature, however, the petitioner cannot be confined in
jail as an under trial prisoner for an indefinite period. In fact, any detention for
a longer period, without completion of trial by the trial Court, is violative of
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048392
CRM-M-6096-2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:048392
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Even the prosecution has been able to
examine only 11 witnesses so far and there is a remote possibility of early
conclusion of the trial befor the trial Court. Apart from that three material
witnesses i.e. PW-5 Preeti, PW-6 Simran and PW-7 Deepak have not supported
the case of the prosecution in the present case.
6. Thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present
petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to
his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty
Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned, subject to the following
conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose
such facts to the Court or to any other authority.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain present before the Court on the
dates fixed for hearing of the case.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself from the Court
proceedings except on the prior permission of the Court
concerned.
(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, (if
already not surrendered), and in case he is not holder of the
same, he shall swear an affidavit to that effect.
(v) The petitioner shall also file his affidavit before the
concerned Court, mentioning his ordinary place of
residence and number of mobile phone, which shall be used
by him during the pendency of the trial. In case of change
of place of residence/mobile number, he shall share the
details with the concerned Court/learned Trial Court.
(vi) In case, the petitioner involves in any other criminal
activity, during the pendency of the trial, it shall be viewed
seriously.
(vii) The concerned Court may insist on two heavy local sureties
and may also impose any other condition, in accordance
with law, while accepting the bails bonds and surety bonds
of the petitioner.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
09.04.2024. JUDGE
hemlata
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
