Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 6 November, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
CRM-M-44088-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(203)
CRM-M-44088-2024
Date of decision:- 06.11.2024
Rajesh Kumar ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. R.S.Bains, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Mohan Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)
1. This is the third petition filed under Section 439, Cr.P.C. seeking
grant of post-arrest bail in:-
FIR Dated Police Station Sections
No.
244 06.04.2022 Ambala Cantt. 148, 149, 323, 332, 353, 324, 307,
District Ambala, IPC (Sections 21, 22-C, 27 and 29 of
Haryana the NDPS Act were added later on)
2. Version of the prosecution is that FIR, Annexure P-3, has been
registered on the statement of ASI, Balkar Singh, wherein it has been stated
that he along with some other police officials were investigating FIR
No.178 dated 01.03.2022 registered for offences under Sections 21 and 29
of the NDPS Act, when they received information that Guddi, wife of
Rajesh Kumar (present petitioner), was standing near the house of one,
Bina. Upon reaching the spot, they apprehended Guddi, who started
shouting. Rakesh Kumar (present petitioner), Prince and Guddi intimated
authenticity of this order/judgment
them and pelted stones on the police team. Monika and Rohan, children of
Rajesh Kumar also started fighting with the police officials and helped
Guddi escape from police custody. Rajesh Kumar and his son, Prince, were
apprehended and despite extensive search, the police team could not locate
Guddi.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the
allegation levelled in the FIR is far from truth and the actual position is
entirely different. He submits that the petitioner is in possession of the
video recording as well as photographs, collectively appended as Annexure
P-5 and P-5A, to submit that the incident, as alleged, never took place.
Counsel asserts that the petitioner has been in custody since 06.04.2022 and
the prosecution has failed to examine even a single witness. By making a
reference to the MLR of the injured police officials, he urges that the
officials have received bruises, swelling and complained of pain. It is his
argument that by no stretch of imagination can offence under Section 307,
IPC be said to have been attracted. He submits that the first petition filed by
the petitioner was withdrawn vide order dated 06.11.2023, Annexure P-1,
and the second petition was withdrawn on 14.08.2024, Annexure P-2, with
liberty to file a fresh one with better particulars.
4. State counsel has filed a status report by way of an affidavit of
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ambala Cantt., District Ambala, which is
taken on record and a copy has been supplied to the counsel for the
petitioner. State counsel has also filed custody certificate dated 05.11.2024,
which is also taken on record. By referring to the status report, State
counsel submits that the petitioner does not enjoy clean antecedents and is
authenticity of this order/judgment
involved in eleven criminal cases, including the present one and out of the
said cases, he submits that petitioner is named as an accused in two FIRs
registered for offences under the NDPS Act. State counsel submits that the
petitioner is accused of obstructing police officials from discharging their
duty, besides assaulting them and helping an accused to escape from police
custody. He asserts that the petitioner's family is involved in trade of drugs
and based on the statement of the petitioner, recovery of 1500 tablets of
Tramadol with a total weight of 525 grams and 260 grams Heroin has been
effected. He has instructions to state that a car purchased by the petitioner
from the proceeds of drug trade has also been recovered from the petitioner.
5. To counter the submission of the State counsel, learned senior
counsel submits that the recovery has allegedly been effected from an open
area. Explaining the position, he submits that the petitioner is a scrap
dealer, who has stored scrap in the open, which is accessible to the public at
large. He submits that out of the eleven criminal cases, petitioner has been
acquitted in four and has undergone sentence in the fifth case. He submits
that as the petitioner is a political worker, he has been deliberately targeted.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
7. Petitioner has undergone a detention of more than 31 months.
Despite the fact that charge was framed on 15.05.2024, prosecution has not
examined any witness. This is a glaring lapse, moreso, as most of the
prosecution witnesses are police officials. The injuries allegedly inflicted
upon the police officials have been noticed by this Court. However, without
authenticity of this order/judgment
commenting upon them or on the allegations levelled against the petitioner,
this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves the concession of bail
in view the length of detention and the nascent stage of the trial.
8. Without examining to the merits or demerits of the arguments
addressed by counsel for the parties, petition is allowed. Petitioner is
ordered to be released on bail on furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to
the satisfaction of the Area Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/Trial Court
concerned.
9. While being released on bail, petitioner shall furnish an
undertaking by way of an affidavit that henceforth he will not indulge in
any criminal activity. He will also report at the police station concerned in
the forenoon on the first Monday of every month and he shall also keep the
SHO/IO apprised of his movements. In case, the petitioner violates any of
these conditions, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of bail.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression
of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
06.11.2024
Kamal
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
