Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amit Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 14 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036621
CRM-M No.58438 of 2023 (O&M)
2024:PHHC:036621
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.58438 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 14.03.2024
Amit Kumar
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Sanpreet Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.
NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral)
CRM No.10566 of 2024
Disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
1. Prayer in this 3rd petition is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in
short 'Cr.P.C.') in FIR No.272 dated 09.05.2022, for offence punishable
under Sections 148, 149, 307, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short
'IPC') and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station
Tehsil Camp, District Panipat.
2. The earlier two petitions seeking regular bail were
dismissed as withdrawn on 19.12.2022 and 10.03.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the new
ground for filing this 3rd petition is that the petitioner is in custody for
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036621
2024:PHHC:036621
the last 01 year, 08 months and 26 days and he is on bail in all other
FIRs registered against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that as per the allegations in the FIR, on 08.05.2022, the
complainant - Mandeep Singh was sleeping with his children and
family members on the roof of the house. At about 2:00/3:00 am. the
pet dog of the complainant started barking and when the complainant
woke up, he saw that Pardeep @ Golu, Yogesh @ Kali, Dheeraj, Amit
Kundu (petitioner herein) and other persons were standing on the back
side of the roof and Amit Kundu - petitioner suddenly opened fire with
pistol towards the complainant and Pardeep also attempted to fire but
failed to do so. The remaining accused started throwing bricks and
stones towards the complainant and other family members and
threatened to kill them.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. He further submits that it is a case of no injury and present
petitioner has no motive to have participated in any manner in the
alleged occurrence. He also contends that no overt act has been
attributed to the petitioner or any specific role has been attributed to the
petitioner. He further submits that petitioner is in custody since
13.06.2022; investigation is complete and challan has already been
presented in the Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the co-
accused of the petitioner namely, Mohan @ Monu; Pardeep @ Golu
and Dheeraj, have already been granted the concession of regular bail
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036621
2024:PHHC:036621
by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 06.11.2023 and
01.12.2023 passed in CRM-M No.31995 of 2023; CRM-M No.53584
of 2023 and CRM-M No.59242 of 2023 whereas Yogesh @ Kali has
been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2024,
passed in CRM-M No.57527 of 2023. He further submits that out of
total 19 prosecution witnesses only one witness has been examined and
now the case is fixed for 03.06.2024 for prosecution evidence. Lastly,
he contends that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time
and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner
behind the bars.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State while placing on
record the custody certificate dated 13.03.2024 has opposed the prayer
for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He further submits that
petitioner is an habitual offender, therefore, he does not deserve the
concession of regular bail. However, he has not disputed that petitioner
is in custody since 13.06.2022; investigation is complete; challan has
been presented; out of total 19 prosecution witnesses only one witness
has been examined till date and abovesaid co-accused of the petitioner
have been granted the concession of regular bail and the petitioner is at
parity with them.
7. Refuting the above contention of the learned State counsel,
learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is on bail in
all other cases i.e. FIR No.613 of 2021, FIR No.119 of 2022, FIR
No.342 of 2019, FIR No.1175 of 2018, FIR No.590 of 2016, FIR
No.1011 of 2016, FIR No.122 of 2022, FIR No.275 of 2022, FIR
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036621
2024:PHHC:036621
No.270 of 2022, FIR No.122 of 2018 and FIR No.522 of 2022, which
has not been disputed by the learned State counsel. Learned counsel,
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, contended 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."
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
9. Without commenting anything on merits of the case,
considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year,
08 months and 26 days; his co-accused, namely, Mohan @ Monu;
Pardeep @ Golu, Dheeraj and Yogesh @ Kali have already been
granted the concession of regular bail; investigation is complete;
challan stands presented; charges have been framed and out of 19 PWs,
only 01 PW has been examined so far; petitioner is already on bail in
other FIRs and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036621
2024:PHHC:036621
petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail
subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial
Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
JUDGE
14.03.2024
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036621
5 of 5
