Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sahil vs State Of Haryana on 12 November, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-48509-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-48509-2024
Reserved on: 07.11.2024
Pronounced on: 12.11.2024
Sahil ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Viney Phogat, DAG, Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
843 02.10.2022 Samalkha, District 302/120-B/148/149 IPC and 25 of
Panipat 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 30 of the bail application and the status report/custody certificate,
the accused has the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. FIR Dated/year Offences Police Station
No. No.
1 755 2022 148/149/323/506/201 IPC Samalkha, Panipat
2 309 23.04.2022 148/149/323/506 IPC Samalkha, Panipat
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State,
which reads as follows:
"(i) That on 02.10.2022, ruqa was received from Government
Hospital, Samalkha that Manoj S/o Ajit has been brought dead in
the Hospital. On receiving ruqa, police party reached at
Government Hospital, Samalkha where Bijender S/o Deep Chand
(uncle of deceased) presented a written complaint. The contents of
the complaint are as follows:-
"To, SHO, PS Samalkha Respected Sir, 1. Bijender S/o
Deep Chand and I am resident of Kuhar Pana, Samalkha. I
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-48509-2024
am an agriculturist. On 01.10. 2022 in the afternoon my
nephew, Manoj Sio Ajit Rio Kuhar Pana told me that on
30.09.2022, during 'Ramlila', Himanshu S/o Rakesh, Sahil
and Rustam etc. abused me and that on 01.10.2022 me and
my nephew Sagar s/o Karambir, both of us after watching
'Ramlila' were going to our house through Bhadbhuja Gali.
After going a long distance in the Gali at about 10:30 P.M.
some persons were beating my nephew Manoj Sio Ajit.
When I and Sagar raised our voices, Himanshu @ Ishu sio
Rakesh stabbed Manoj on his sides and waist with a knife
which was in his hand, then Sahil s/o Randhir stabbed
Manoj with a knife on his waist, then Romi struck Manoj on
his hands with knife and then Rustam @Chota struck
Manoj with a Ice Pick (Sua) and even others beat Manoj.
That Sagar and I tried to catch them but everyone flew with
their weapons who threatened that whoever comes in
between will be murdered. Sagar and I took Manoj on
motorcycle and admitted him in the Govt. Hospital
Samalkha where Doctor declared Monoj as brought dead.
Himanshu@ Ishu, Sahil s/o Randhir, Romi grandson of
Randhir, Rustam @ Chota (s/o maternal uncle of Ishu) and
some other residents of Balmiki Basti, Samalkha have
murdered Manoj and that strict action should be taken,
against them."
On the basis of said complaint and nature of crime, a formal
FIR No. 843 dated 02.10.2022 under sections 302, 148, 149 and
506 of IPC (Section 120-B of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act were
added later on), was registered at P.S Samalkha, District
Panipat."
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:
9 Sahil S/o 08.10.2022 He is named in He gave knife blows in the knife
Randhir FIR, statement of waist of the deceased
(Petitioner) complainant dated
04.10.2022
"3. That the role of the petitioner is that he is specifically
named in the FIR. On 30.09.2022, co-accused Himanshu had
verbal arguments with the deceased, and they had exchanged
abuses with each other during the event of Ramlila. Thereafter, the
deceased left from there, as the accused persons had threatened
him to kill if he did not leave from there. On 01.10.2022, co-
accused Himanshu and deceased again met at Golden Park,
Samalkha, where they had verbal arguments with each other,
whereupon the petitioner and other co-accused conspired to kill
the deceased when he will arrive at the event of Ramlina. In
pursuance thereof, they went to the event along with weapons, and
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-48509-2024
when the deceased arrived at the event, they started to
surrounding him, whereupon the deceased started running away to
save himself. However, the accused persons caught him at some
distance and started stabbing him with their respective weapons.
The petitioner was armed with hidden knife (dagger) and he gave
its blow on the waist of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell
on the ground, whereupon co-accused Krish took the knife from
the petitioner and stabbed the deceased on his chest, and the
deceased succumbed to his injuries on the spot. The petitioner has
confessed to his role in crime and got demarcated the crime spot
in pursuance of his disclosure statement and also got recovered
knife used by him in the commission of crime as per his disclosure
statement, Annexure R-2."
7. Two of the star witnesses of the prosecution, namely PW-1 Bijender, uncle
(Chacha) of the deceased, and PW-2 Sagar, cousin of the deceased, did not support the
prosecution and were declared hostile. However, a specific injury was attributed to the
petitioner, and the prosecution's evidence is not yet over.
8. 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;
this court refrains from doing so.
9. Regarding the delay in the trial, given the nature of the injury attributed to the
petitioner and the minimum sentence provided, which is imprisonment for life, the
petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage because of current pre-trial custody.
10. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
11. Petition dismissed. 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
