Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karan vs State Of Haryana on 12 November, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-50997-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-50997-2024
Reserved on: 07.11.2024
Pronounced on: 12.11.2024
Karan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Toor, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, DAG, Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
329 27.10.2023 Badli, District 307/34/ IPC and 25/27/54/59
Jhajjar of Arms Act
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this
Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking
regular bail.
2. Per paragraph 18 of the bail application as well as of the status report filed by the
State, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. FIR Dated Offences Police Station
No No
1 266 08.10.2019 307 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Badli
Act
2 150 08.05.2022 285/506/34 IPC, 25/54/59 of Badli
Arms Act, 3 of SC&ST Act
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State,
which reads as follows:
"4. That the facts giving rise to registration of the present
FIR are that on 27.10.2023 an complaint was moved by
complainant namely Vansh S/o Kashi Ram resident of village Badli
in Police Station Badli in the manner that" To SHO Sir Police
Station Badli, Sir, it is a request that I am Vansh S/o Kashi Ram
resident of village Badli Pana-Lakhyan and studying in 12th class.
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-50997-2024
Our shop is near Badli Bus Stand in the name of KC Ram Khad
Beej Bhandar. Before which, my father had parked in front of the
shop after filling the trolley with paddy. Who had to take it to
Najafgarh Mandi in the morning. I was sitting near the tractor
trolley. When today 27/10/23 at 12:30 am Karan S/0 Kailash
resident of Badli, Karan Jhandu S/o Lagdi resident of Badli, Sahil
S/o Sume resident of Badli, Sunny 5/o Jasdev resident of
Dariyapur, all four came on HD-Deluxe Motor Cycle. Seeing me
sitting there, they started abusing me. When I made noise, Pawan
S/o Pappu @ Umesh, Ankit son of Jaideep brought a motorcycle
which was also accompanied by Devil son of Mainpal, came there.
Karan and his three friends again had a fight with me. I picked up
the stones lying there and threw them towards them in my defence.
At that moment, Karan fired at me with the pistol he was holding in
his hand and after firing, all four persons ran away towards Delhi.
Legal action should be taken against all four of them".
4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and
contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the
petitioner and their family.
5. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report,
which read as follows:
"10. That on the basis of disclosure statement of present petitioner
recovery of one country made pistol and one live cartridge used in
the present offence was effected from Savtanter Nagar, Narela
which was taken into possession vide recovery memo."
7. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the bail petition,
which read as follows:
"6. That the story of the complainant is also quite hard to
believe as it is improbable that the complainant shouted at midnight
(12:30AM) and three people came from the distant residential area
on a bike to help him so quickly. There is no evidence or statement
which can show that the complainant and his friends had any
telephonic communication.
7. That it is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant
and his father are hardcore criminals as after the above said
incident on 27.10.2023, the complainant and his father committed a
murder along with others. On this murder, police registered a FIR
NO. 337/2023 P.S. Badli. The complainant (Vansh) and his father
Keshiram are confined in Distt. Jail Jhajjar at Dulina, in the said
case."
8. The petitioner fired upon the complainant, and it was his good luck that the
petitioner could not aim.
9. A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points
towards the petitioner's involvement and does not make out a case for bail. The impact of
crime would not justify bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petitioner;
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-50997-2024
this court refrains from doing so.
10. Petitioner is not entitled to bail on parity with co-accused Aaditya because
petitioner had fired and not Aaditya.
11. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
12. Petition dismissed. Interim orders, if any, are recalled with immediate effect. All
pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
12.11.2024
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
