Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sahil vs State Of Haryana on 1 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097973
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
204
CRM-M-56145-2023
Date of decision : 01.08.2024
Sahil .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present : Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, D.A.G., Haryana.
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section
439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.244 dated
21.06.2021 registered under Sections 195-A, 323, 307, 452, 506 and 34
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25, 27, 29 of the Arms Act,
1959 (to which Section 325 of IPC was added later on) at Police Station
Beri, District Jhajjar, Haryana.
2. The present FIR was registered on a complaint made by
complainant-Monu alleging that in the intervening night of
23/24.04.2021, Sahil (the petitioner herein) and his companion Rahul
and Sunny have beaten the complainant in the fields and for that FIR
No.128 dated 24.04.2021 under Section 323, 341, 506 read with Section
34 IPC, P.S. Beri, was registered. After that, his uncle Subhash, aunt
Mamta (parents of the petitioner) and petitioner-accused arrived several
time at the house of complainant and asked to withdraw the registered
case otherwise, to face consequences. The complainant refused to bow
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097973
before the threat of the said persons. Having that grudge in minds,
Subhash, Mamta, Sahil and Surender @ Kale entered in the house of
complainant by breaking the main gate. Petitioner-accused was having
revolver in his hand. Subhash was having Jelly and Mamta was having
Lathi, as well Surender @ Kale was having danda. Upon entering in the
house of complainant and saying that now face the consequences for not
withdrawing the registered case, the trespasser/assailants started beating
complainant party. Petitioner-accused indiscriminately fired from
revolver and remaining gave blows of jelly and dandas. Fire arm
injuries were suffered by injured Nahar Singh. After completion of the
assault, assailants fled away from the spot.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. No specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner and
whereas, the complainant party gave four head injuries to the petitioner,
which are grievous in nature. The revolver, which is shown to be
recovered, belongs to complainant party and the same has been planted
upon the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody
since 20.12.2021. He further submits that investigation in the present
case is complete; challan has been presented; charges have been framed;
out of total 33 prosecution witnesses only 05 have been examined so far
and trial may take a considerable time to conclude. Therefore, no
fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner behind bars.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel, while placing on record
custody certificate has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097973
petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is also involved in 06 other
cases. However, he could not dispute the fact that the petitioner is in
custody for the last more than 02 years and 07 months; investigation in
the present case is complete; challan has been presented; charges have
been framed; out of total 33 prosecution witnesses only 05 have been
examined so far; trial may take a considerable time to conclude.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in all other
06 cases, the petitioner is on bail. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and
another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while
deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner
cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in
other cases. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of
criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent
cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the
Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in
which he has been charged and other circumstances such
as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the
Court etc."
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
7. Keeping in view the custody of the petitioner, which is 02
years, 07 months and 12 days; investigation is complete; challan has
been presented; charges have been framed and out of 33 prosecution
witnesses, only 05 have been examined and trial is likely to take a
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097973
considerable time, however, without commenting upon the merits of the
case, the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail during trial
on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa
Magistrate/Trial Court.
8. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
01.08.2024 JUDGE
Kothiyal
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
