Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pradeep Alias Rishi vs State Of Haryana on 10 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049487
212 2024:PHHC:049487
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-12664-2024
DECIDED ON: 10.04.2024
PRADEEP @ RISHI
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurbir Singh Dhillon, AAG, Haryana.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been
invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 464, dated
27.07.2018, under Sections 120-B, 148, 149, 195-A, 302, 506 IPC and Section 25
of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 195-A deleted later on and Section 216 IPC and
Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959 added later on, registered at Police Station Samalkha,
District Panipat.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated in the present case and the petitioner has been attributed a role of
firing gun shot over the deceased but no injury has been attributed to the petitioner,
as such Section 302 IPC would not be attracted against him. He asserts that the
petitioner has undergone incarceration for a period of 5 years and 6 months, as of
now and the trial is still at prosecution stage, which is going very slow.
3. Custody certificate of the petitioner filed by learned State counsel is
taken on record. He prays for dismissal of the present petition urging that the
petitioner is a habitual offender, who is involved in multiple cases under IPC.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049487
5. Heard, learned counsel for the respective parties.
6. No injury whatsoever has been attributed by the petitioner on the
person of the deceased apart from firing gun shot in the air whereas, it is main
accused Pardeep whose bullet hit the deceased and withdrew his petition seeking
regular bail on 17.07.2023 (Annexure P-7).
7. Be that as it may, this Court is sanguine of the fact that the petitioner
has already suffered incarceration for a period of 05 years and 6 months and added
with the facts that no injury has been attributed by the petitioner on the person of
the deceased and after framing of charges on 10.05.2019, out of total 28 prosecution
witnesses only 9 have been examined so far, meaning thereby, that conclusion of
trial shall take considerable time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the
petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period, which would also violate the
principle of right to speedy trial and expeditious disposal as enshrined under Article
21 of Constitution of India, 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.
8. 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.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049487
9. In view of the 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.
10. The present petition is, hereby, allowed.
11. 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)
10.04.2024 JUDGE
Sham
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
