Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjay @ Sanjay Saini vs State Of Haryana on 3 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082277
CRM-M No.29910 of 2024 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
229+114
*****
CRM-M No.29910 of 2024 (O & M)
Date of decision : 3.7.2024
Sanjay @ Sanjay Saini .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate and
Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana
---
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
CRM No.25855 of 2024
This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
placing on record copies of the Statements of Chaman Lal, Ranjeet and
disclosure statement of Sanjay as Annexures P-2 to P-4 respectively.
Exemption from filing certified copies thereof has also been prayed.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed. Annexures P-2 to P-4 are taken on record and exemption is
granted from filing certified copies thereof.
This petition under section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant
of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.2 dated 1.1.2024, under
Sections 25 (1)A and 27 of Arms Act, 1959, Sections 148, 149, 323, 341
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082277
of IPC (Sections 148 and 149 IPC were deleted and Sections 325, 307 and
34 IPC were added lateron), registered at Police Station Gadpuri, District
Palwal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is
not named in the FIR. The only allegation against the present petitioner is
that he had given a wooden stick blow on the leg of the injured. It is
further argued on his behalf that in any case provisions under the Arms
Act would not come for against the petitioner and the injury attributed on
the leg is simple in nature, and as such Section 325 IPC will not be
attributed against the petitioner in the FIR.
3. Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate
reflecting the petitioner already suffered incarceration of 4 months and 14
days. In addition to that it is stated that a country made pistol was
recovered from the petitioner but could not corroborate the said recovery
and the injuries attributed to the present petitioner. Hence, the same
cannot be accepted for the purpose of considering the present petitioner
for grant of regular bail, wherein charges are yet to be framed in a case
where 21 prosecution witnesses are yet to be recorded.
4. Having gone through the contents of the FIR as well as the
statements made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
State Counsel, the custody period undergone by the petitioner who is
involved in one other case, though is on bail, meaning thereby he is not a
habitual offender, added with the fact that he is attributed the injury which
is simple in nature, and as per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence,
no one should be considered as guilty till the guilt is proved beyond
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082277
reasonable doubt, whereas in the instant case, trial is prolonged and likely
to take long time in the light of the fact that 21 prosecution witnesses are
to be examined and charges are yet to be framed 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 elucidated in the judgment
of Apex Court in "Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another, (2018) 3 SCC 22".
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. However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
7. The petition stands allowed
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
3.7.2024
Ashwani
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
