Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh Gurga Alias Ravinder vs State Of Haryana on 19 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052782
CRM-M-17904 of 2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:052782
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
212
CRM-M-17904 of 2024
Date of Decision: 19.04.2024
Rajesh alias Gurga ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Baljinder Singh Virk, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
*****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
This is a petition seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR
No.62, dated 18.07.2018, under Sections 302, 120-B, 506 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police
Station GRP Gurugram, District GRP Ambala Cantt.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the case and he has been attributed with the
allegation of firing gun shots though it is not coming forth in the FIR or
through the MLR. The injury out of this act has been caused to the deceased
which are otherwise attributed to Roshni Devi w/o Dharambir and other
co-accused, who fired bullets at him to which he fell on the road and died.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has produced the copy
of the custody certificate, which is taken on record and he prays for dismissal
of the instant petition stating that the petitioner is involved in other cases
meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.
Be that as it may, having gone through the custody certificate, the
petitioner has suffered incarceration of 05 years, 08 months and 12 days and
considering the fact that investigation is complete, challan stands filed and the
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052782
CRM-M-17904 of 2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:052782
fact that out of total 35 prosecution witnesses, 33 witnesses have been
examined so far which is sufficient to infer for this Court that the trial will take
long time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind
the bars for uncertain period, wherein bail is a rule and jail is an exception and
it would also violate the principle of right to speedy trial and expeditious
disposal 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.
As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of the
petitioner in 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, while referring
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the
time of granting bail, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked
into but at the same time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence
during the course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in
that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in the other pending cases.
In view of the above, petitioner is directed to be released on
regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
The present petition is, hereby, allowed.
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)
19.04.2024 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
