Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sonu Alias Surender vs State Of Haryana on 24 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055665
CRM-M-18767-2024 2024:PHHC:055665 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
211 CRM-M-18767-2024
DECIDED ON: 24.04.2024
SONU @ SURENDER .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. S.S. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S.Dhillon, AAG, Haryana.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under
Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.29,
dated 13.02.2023, under Sections 302, 201, 34, 120-B of IPC and Section
25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Baragudha, District Sirsa.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no specific
injury has been attributed to the petitioner except that he was
accompanying the other coaccused at the time of commissioning of
offence.
3. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the
petitioner, which is taken on record. According to the custody certificate,
the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 1 year, 2 months and 6 days.
He does not controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner. Though, he prays for dismissal of the present petition on the
ground that the petitioner is involved in two other cases
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055665
4. Be that as it may, considering the fact that no injury whatsoever
has been attributed to the petitioner, as has been admitted by learned State
counsel and the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 1 year, 2 months
and 6 days wherein charges have been framed on 17.05.2023 and out of
total 17 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined, which is suffice
to convince this Court that trial is likely to take long time, no useful
purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for an
uncertain period, which would amount to infringement of his right to life
and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is
against the principle "bail is a rule and jail is an exception", 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.
5. 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.
6. In the light of above 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.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055665
7. The present petition is, hereby, allowed.
8. 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)
24.04.2024 JUDGE
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
