Punjab-Haryana High Court
Munna Alias Imamudin vs State Of Haryana on 10 April, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
CRM-M-1739-2024 -1-
2024:PHHC:049526
211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-1739-2024
Decided on : 10.04.2024
Munna @ Imamudin ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present : Mr. Jagmohan S. Ghumman, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Trishanjli Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral)
1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
concession of regular bail in case FIR No.316 dated 30.08.2015 under
Sections 148, 149, 323, 341, 302 and 506 IPC registered at Police
Station Tauru (Sadar Tauru) District Nuh.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case in hand for the
murder of Saleem (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'). While
drawing the attention of this Court to FIR annexed as Annexure P-1,
learned counsel has further submitted that a perusal of the same
clearly reveals that totally vague allegations have been levelled by the
complainant that the petitioner along with co-accused had assaulted
the deceased; no specific role had been assigned to the petitioner in
2024:PHHC:049526
the alleged occurrence. It has still further been argued that a false and
fabricated case having been planted upon the petitioner was evident
from the fact that all the other accused qua whom identical allegations
had been levelled, had since been acquitted by the Trial Court on
07.02.2018, as the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. In support, learned counsel has
invited the attention of this Court to the judgment of acquittal passed by
the trial Court, which has been annexed as Annexure P-6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
no doubt, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender after the
registration of the FIR in question, however, it was a matter of record
that during that time when he allegedly absconded, he was not involved
in any other criminal case. Learned counsel has contended that the
petitioner has now been in custody since 18.12.2023, charges have not
yet been framed and are likely to be framed on the next date of hearing
i.e. 17.05.2024 coupled with the fact that as many as 17 prosecution
witnesses have been cited. Hence, there is no likelihood of the trial
concluding in the near future.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by counsel for
the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned
counsel for the petitioner, however, it has not been disputed by either of
them that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the crime in
question were identical to those levelled against the co-accused, who
had since been acquitted by the Trial Court vide judgment dated
07.02.2018 (Annexure P-6). It has also not been controverted by the
2024:PHHC:049526
learned counsel for the complainant that even though an application
under Section 319 Cr.PC was moved by the prosecution against some
identically placed co-accused, however, it was not only dismissed by
the Trial Court but even later on affirmed by this Court. Learned State
counsel, on instructions, has not been able to dispute the stage of the
trial. It has also not been disputed by him, on instructions, that during
the period when the petitioner absconded, he was not involved in any
other criminal case.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material placed on record.
5. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to reproduce
the relevant portion of the FIR wherein allegations have been levelled
against the petitioner and the other co-accused, which is as under:
"That today at approximately 02.00 pm my brother
visited me and said that he has received some news from
his wife, who is at her parental house that she is very sad
and bothered and is asking him to get her back. That I
advised my brother that if they are calling you then you
should go to your in-laws house but avoid any
confrontations with anybody, which may result in something
untoward. That at 06.35 pm, I received a telephonic call
from my brother Saleem from mobile number 9812259553
on my mobile number 9050871716 craving for help and
asked me to reach his in-laws house as soon as possible if
I were to see him alive, that he has been served poison in
drinking water and that they have beaten him up and tied
him with rope to a Neem tree. That on receiving this
information my Taya's son Fakru s/o Younus, my brother
2024:PHHC:049526
Aklhtar @ Bada, Sameer s/o Roze Khan and myself
reached my brother's in-laws house and found him tied to
the Neem tree with a rope surrounded by Jaanu s/o
Rehmat r/o Roopdakka Police Station Hatheen, Kamaalu
s/o Isaaq r/o Bhangoh Police Station Tauru, Bhola @
Mustaaq, Munna, Billu s/o Zaakir, Hassan Basri w/o Zaakir,
Moni @ Zubaina d/o Zaakir, Asgar s/o Nizra, Zaikam s/o
Kutru r/o Mohammadpur Dhaani and that all the above
mentioned individuals were carrying 2-2 wooden canes,
shoes, sandals and were beating my brother in our
presence. That as soon as we tried to save my brother from
thrashings, the above-mentioned individuals threatened to
kill us as well if we intervened."
6. Admittedly, as not disputed by the learned State counsel as
well as counsel for the complainant, the allegations levelled against the
petitioner are no different from the ones levelled against the co-
accused, who have since been acquitted by the trial court vide
judgment dated 07.02.2018 (Annexure P-6). There is no likelihood of
the trial concluding in the near future as charges are likely to be framed
only on 17.05.2024 coupled with the fact that as many as 17 witnesses
have been cited by the prosecution.
7. In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove
coupled with the fact that the petitioner has clean antecedents, this
Court deems it fit to extend the concession of regular bail to the
petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner be
admitted to bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of
the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
2024:PHHC:049526
8. However, it is made clear that anything observed
hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on
the merits of the case.
10.04.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
sonia JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
