Punjab-Haryana High Court
Virender Alias Nikku vs State Of Haryana on 16 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051395
CRM-M-17084-2024 2024:PHHC:051395 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
230 CRM-M-17084-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 16.04.2024
VIRENDER ALIAS NIKKU ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr.S.S. Jattan, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. G.S.Dhillon, AAG, Haryana.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has
been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.61,
dated 17.05.2018 under Sections 34, 364, 302, 120-B, 406, 420 IPC and
Sections 25 & 29 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Barara,
Ambala.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as there is no
specific allegations against the petitioner. There is unexplained delay of
12 hours in lodging the FIR and there is no explanation either by the
police or by the complainant regarding the said delay. The petitioner is
in custody for last 5 years, 1 month and 5 days. It is contended that
when the complainant as well as eye witness Ritik Verma were
examined during the proceedings of trial, none of them has supported
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051395
CRM-M-17084-2024 2024:PHHC:051395 -2-
the case of prosecution. He further submits that all the co-accused have
been granted bail by this Court.
Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the
petitioner, which is taken on record. According to which, the petitioner
is behind bars for the last 5 years, 1 month and 5 days. He has opposed
the prayer made in the present petition stating that the petitioner is
habitual offender and is also involved in other cases. He fairly submits
that the complainant as well as eye witness have turned hostile.
Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, this
Court is of the considered view that since the petitioner has already
suffered sufficient period in custody and as per the principle of the
criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered as guilty till the
guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the instant case,
trial is prolonged and likely to take long time in the light of the fact that
out of 61 prosecution witnesses, only 6 have been examined and
detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would
amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and is
against the principle "Bail is a rule, jail is an exception".
As far as pendency of other case is concerned, this Court in
various judgments has already 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 is not
material for the instant FIR. Further, that the all co-accused have been
granted concession of regular bail, the petitioner is directed to be
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051395
CRM-M-17084-2024 2024:PHHC:051395 -3-
released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
Petition stands allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
16.04.2024
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
