Punjab-Haryana High Court
Khilara Singh Alias Munna Alias Khari ... vs State Of Punjab on 19 March, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039483
2024:PHHC:039483
222 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-514-2024
Date of Decision: 19.03.2024
KHILARA SINGH ALIAS MUNNA ALIAS KHARI ALIAS
KHALARA ALIAS KHLARA
....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Karandeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Inderjeet Singh, DAG, Punjab.
*******
KARAMJIT SINGH, J.
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, 427, 148, 149, 120-B of IPC and Section 25, 27, 54, 59 of
Arms Act, 1959 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
P-3), 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 15.06.2023 but nothing incriminating was recovered from his
possession. That police presented supplementary challan against the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039483
CRM-M-514-2024 :2: 2024:PHHC:039483
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 15.06.2023. 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
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.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039483
CRM-M-514-2024 :3: 2024:PHHC:039483
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
