Punjab-Haryana High Court
Akash Alias Aakash vs State Of Haryana on 30 September, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129512
CRM-M-45314-2024 (O&M) [1]
121
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-45314-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.09.2024
Akash @ Aakash
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Balvinder Sangwan, Advocate and
Mr. Savreet Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. This is the third petition filed for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in FIR No.514 dated 16.07.2018 registered under Sections 307 and
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959
(Section 452 of IPC has been added later on) at Police Station Sadar Palwal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been in custody since 09.02.2021 and even earlier also, he was in
custody from 30.08.2018 to 01.12.2018 and thus, total custody of the petitioner
is more than 3 years, 10 months and 19 days. It is further submitted that
although, two witnesses remain to be examined which includes the
Investigating Officer namely ASI Satvir Singh but has submitted that the said
Investigating Officer namely ASI Satvir Singh has been summoned since
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129512
CRM-M-45314-2024 (O&M) [2]
17.08.2023 and even non-bailable warrants have been issued against him but
yet he has not appeared before the Court. It is submitted that the petitioner is
not involved in any other case and only on the ground of custody, he deserves
to be granted regular bail. It is further submitted that the last bail application of
the petitioner was withdrawn on 30.11.2022 and even thereafter, sufficient
time has elapsed but yet the trial has not been concluded. In support of his
arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs.
State of Maharashtra and another reported as 2024(3) RCR(Criminal) 494 to
state that right to a speedy trial of offenders facing criminal charges is implicit
in the broad scope and contents of Article 21 and thus, keeping the petitioner in
further incarceration would be violative of his right under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. It is further submitted that as per the FIR, one injury has
been caused to the injured in the incident in question and from the FIR, it is not
clear as to who out of the two accused i.e. the present petitioner namely Akash
son of Daya Ram or Akash son of Ved Prakash (wrongly mentioned as Dev
Raj in the FIR) had shot the injured who had suffered one injury. It is further
submitted that primary witness in the present case was injured-Balraj @ Ballan
who has subsequently died in another incident in which the petitioner is not
involved and thus, the petitioner has arguable points in the main case as well.
3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has submitted that
although in the FIR, the aspect as to who shot the said Balraj is not clear but
during the course of investigation, it has been found that it is the present
petitioner who had shot the injured-Balraj. It is further submitted that only two
witnesses are left to be examined and the State is trying its level best to get the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129512
CRM-M-45314-2024 (O&M) [3]
ASI examined and in the said regard, has filed an affidavit dated 29.09.2024 of
Narender Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime against Women,
Palwal today in the Court which is taken on record and has referred to the same
in order to state that on account of absence and non-cooperation by the
Investigating Officer, the State has suspended him and is proceeding against
him departmentally. The other facts however, have not been disputed.
4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper book.
5. The total custody of the petitioner as on date is more than 3 years,
10 months and 19 days and yet the trial has not been completed. The petitioner
is stated to be not involved in any other case. Investigating Officer in the
present case i.e. ASI Satvir Singh has not been examined in spite of the fact
that he has been summoned by the trial Court by issuing bailable and non-
bailable warrants. A perusal of para No.2 of the abovesaid affidavit dated
29.09.2024 filed by the State specifically records the fact that two bailable
warrants and six non-bailable warrants have been issued to the said ASI to
appear and the said ASI who is the Investigating Officer in the present case has
become absent from his duty without informing and accordingly, has been
suspended and departmental inquiry has also been initiated against him. Para
No.2 of the said affidavit is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"2. That on receiving the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by
the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, the
deponent got enquired into the matter and found that Ld. Trail
court has issued 08 summons, 2 bailable warrant and 6 Non-
Bailable warrants of the IO and then Show cause notice dated
24.09.2024 has been issued to him and directed him to reply with
in one day, but instead of giving reply, he became absent from his
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129512
CRM-M-45314-2024 (O&M) [4]
duty without information, hence his suspension and departmental
inquiry has been recommended to competent authority by the
under signed vide letter no.625-5A dated 26.09.2024. On the
basis of recommendation he has been suspended vide order No-
20010-15 Dated 29.09.2024 Ld. Superintendent of Police, Palwal
The letter is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1."
6. It is thus, apparent that the trial is not likely to end in the near
future and at any rate, keeping in view the custody of the petitioner and also
the law laid down in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh (Supra), keeping
the petitioner in further incarceration would be violative of his right under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. Accordingly, the present petition for regular bail is allowed and
the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail
bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate and subject to him not being required in any other case.
8. However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by the
petitioner to threaten any of the witnesses, then it would be open to the State to
move an application for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner.
9. Nothing stated above shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of
the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of
adjudicating the present bail application.
10. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.
30.09.2024 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
