Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rohit Goria @ Kaki vs State Of Punjab on 19 March, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039489
2024:PHHC:039489
222(A) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-47820-2022(O&M)
Date of Decision: 19.03.2024
ROHIT GORIA @ KAKI
....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Inderjeet Singh, DAG, Punjab.
*******
KARAMJIT SINGH, J.
CRM-5017-2024
Dismissed as withdrawn having been infructuous.
CRM-M-47820-2022
Prayer in the present petition under Section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case
FIR No.06 dated 05.01.2021 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 302 of IPC and Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act, 1959 (Section
148/149/120-B/427 of IPC added later on) at Police Station City
Ferozepur, District Ferozepur.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR in the present
case was registered against unknown persons who indiscriminately fired
at the car driven by deceased-Chetan and his wife namely Drishti was
also travelling in the said car and due to aforesaid firing, Chetan died. He
further submits that earlier some of the co-accused faced trial but were
acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039489
CRM-M-47820-2022(O&M) :2: 2024:PHHC:039489
P-3) which is available on the file of connected matter having
CRM-M-514-2024, as the material witnesses failed to support the case of
prosecution. He further submits that later on petitioner was arrested in the
present case on 18.05.2022 but nothing incriminating was recovered from
his possession. That police presented supplementary challan against
the present petitioner and thereafter charges were framed and during trial
wife of deceased namely Drishti and her brother-in-law-Chandan failed
to support the case of prosecution while appearing in the witness box.
Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the given circumstances,
no purpose is going to be served by keeping the petitioner in custody for
any longer period.
3. Present petition is contested by the State counsel, who
submits that the petitioner was involved in indiscriminate firing which
resulted in death of Chetan. It is further submitted that during
investigation name of the petitioner figured and later on he was arrested
on 18.05.2022. However, the State counsel has not disputed the fact
regarding passing of judgment dated 05.07.2023(Annexure P-3) whereby
the co-accused who faced trial were acquitted by the trial Court. The
State counsel has also not disputed the fact that after the framing of
charges against the petitioner trial has commenced and material witnesses
Drishti and Chandan failed to support the case of prosecution against the
petitioner while appearing in the witness box.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for
the parties.
5. As per judgment dated 05.07.2023(Annexure P-3), it is
evident that other co-accused who faced trial were acquitted by the trial
Court. The State counsel has not disputed the fact that now petitioner is
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039489
CRM-M-47820-2022(O&M) :3: 2024:PHHC:039489
facing trial wherein also complainant-Drishti and her brother-in-law-
Chandan were declared hostile. It will take considerable time for the trial
to conclude. So, no useful purpose is going to be served by keeping the
petitioner in custody for any further period.
6. In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of
the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be
released on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds
to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty
Magistrate concerned.
19.03.2024 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Priyanka Thakur JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
