Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahakar vs State Of Haryana on 31 January, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013223
CRM-M-3736-2024 - 1-
218 2024:PHHC:01322
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-3736-2024
DECIDED ON: 31st JANUARY, 2024
MAHAKAR
....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate for
Mr. V.B. Godara, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Dhillon, AAG, Haryana.
*****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J
1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been invoked for the grant of regular bail to
the petitioner in case FIR No. 358, dated 06.10.2014, under Sections 302,
392, 201 and 412 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Hansi, District
Hisar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is a case of
blind murder and there is no eye witness. He further contends that all the
three co-accused namely Sandeep, Vijay Kumar and Gajender have been
acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 23.09.2022 (Annexure P-2)
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar.
3. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013223
CRM-M-3736-2024 - 2-
petitioner, which is taken on record. According to which the petitioner has
suffered incarceration for a period 05 months and 17 days, as of now. He
does not dispute the afore-said fact and on instructions from SI Sumer,
submits that the occurrence took place on 06.10.2014 and the petitioner was
arrested on 14.08.2023 i.e. after 9 years of occurrence.
4. Considering the fact that the other co-accused have already
been acquitted by the trial Court added with the fact that neither any direct
evidence nor any incriminating material is available with the prosecution
agency against the petitioner, wherein, challan stands presented and charges
are yet to be framed meaning thereby, that the trial will take considerable
time to conclude, which would also curtail the right of the petitioner for speedy
trial and expeditious disposal, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be
detained for an indefinite period.
5. In view of the aforesaid 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.
6. The present petition is allowed in the afore-said terms.
7. 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)
st
31 JANUARY, 2024 JUDGE
Sham
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013223
2 of 2
