Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gaurav Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 2 September, 2024
CRM-M-52789-2022, CRM-M-24625-2024,
CRM-M-26431-2024 and CRM-M-34224-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.213
Case No. : CRM-M-52789-2022
Decided On : September 02, 2024
Gaurav Kumar .... Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana .... Respondent
Case No. : CRM-M-24625-2024
Decided On : September 02, 2024
Bal Singh @ John @ Vicky .... Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana .... Respondent
Case No. : CRM-M-26431-2024
Decided On : September 02, 2024
Sahil @ Aman .... Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana .... Respondent
Case No. : CRM-M-34224-2024
Decided On : September 02, 2024
Sanjeev Kumar .... Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr.Ravi Rana, Advocate (in CRM-M-52789-2022)
Mr.Arun Gupta, Advocate
for Ms. Monika Gupta, Advocate (in CRM-M-24625-2024)
MONIKA
2024.09.06 17:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-52789-2022, CRM-M-24625-2024,
CRM-M-26431-2024 and CRM-M-34224-2024 -2-
Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate
and Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate (in CRM-M-26431-2024)
Ms. Neeru Bansal, Advocate (in CRM-M-34224-2024)
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, DAG, Haryana.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
1. By this common judgment, four bail petitions bearing CRM-M-
52789-2022, CRM-M-24625-2024, CRM-M-26431-2024 & CRM-M-
34224-2024 shall be decided as all these four petitions have arisen out of
same FIR, bearing No.249 dated 26.04.2021 (Annexure P-1), under Sections
302, 201 IPC (Section 365 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station
Indri, District Karnal.
2. Briefly, the case in question was registered on the statement of one
Balinder Singh son of Dayala Ram, resident of Kheri Maan Singh, Tehsil
Indri, District Karnal, wherein he stated that on 26.04.2021, he was walking
on the bank of Satluj-Yamuna Canal. It had dried up and about 300 meters
from river bridge of his village towards Karnal, he saw one hand of a person
under the river bed. When he went near, a head and legs were also seen
under the river bed and waist was also seen. He informed about it to the
police. After some time, police reached at the spot. On seeing this dead
body, it was presumed that someone had killed that person and buried him
under the river bed. The said statement of Balinder Singh was got recorded
and FIR in question was registered.
CRM-M-52789-2022, CRM-M-24625-2024,
3. During investigation, statement of Neel Kamal Chawla, father of
the deceased was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He disclosed that his
wife died about 15 years ago. His son Rahul Chawla was unmarried. On
24.04.2021, his son Rahul Chawla, after parking his Activa at his house,
went somewhere without disclosing anything to him. Later on, he came to
know that his son had gone in some car with his friends, without disclosing
to him and thereafter, he did not return home. He was searching his son at
his own but no clue was found. Mobile phone of his son was continuously
switched off. He further stated that on 27.04.2021, he received telephonic
information that dead body of his son Rahul Chawla was recovered and he
was called to identify the same.
4. On the basis of call detail records of the mobile phones, which
were recovered along with dead body, and on the statement of Neel Kamal
Chawla, accused Sahil @ Aman, Sanjeev Kumar, Raj Kumar and Gourav
Kumar were arrested. While in custody, they disclosed about their
involvement in the present case. Accused Gourav confessed that he, Sanjeev
Kumar, Sahil @ Aman, Raj Kumar and Bal Singh @ John made a plan to
kill Rahul Chawla, who used to sit with them, eat and drink. So, they
contacted Rahul Chawla and after sitting in the car of Sanjeev Kumar,
around 11 o'clock in the night, Rahul Chawla was abducted and taken to the
canal track. After causing injuries to him with different weapons carried by
them, they all killed him and buried the dead body of Rahul Chawla in the
sand of dried canal. Then all of them returned to their respective homes in
CRM-M-52789-2022, CRM-M-24625-2024,
the same car driven by Sanjeev Kumar. He further stated that on the next
day, he went to Rishikesh due to fear of being caught. On the basis of his
disclosure statement, clothes, mobile phones, wooden sticks and iron rods
used in the crime were got recovered. As per viscera report submitted by
FSL (H), Madhuban, Karnal, no common poison/ethyl could be detected.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) have argued that charges
have been framed in the case. Neel Kamal Chawla, father of the deceased,
has been examined as PW-9 (Annexure P-4). He did not support the version
of the prosecution. On the request of Public Prosecutor, he was declared
hostile and was cross-examined but prosecution failed to elicit any fact
against the petitioner. It has further been apprised to this Court that accused
Gourav Kumar has already been released on interim bail vide order dated
25.04.2024, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-
52789-2022. Another accused namely Sahil @ Aman has also been released
on interim bail vide order dated 29.05.2024 passed by this Court in CRM-
M-26431-2024. It has further been argued that there is no evidence
collected against the petitioner(s) and statement made before the police does
not lead to recovery of any fact. So, the same is inadmissible in evidence.
Two out of four petitioners are in custody for the last more than three years.
6. Learned State counsel has opposed all the bail petitions while
submitting that in cases of heinous crime, if petitioner(s) are released on
bail, then they may repeat the same offence. Keeping in view the gravity of
crime, the petitioners do not deserve any concession from the Court. So, all
CRM-M-52789-2022, CRM-M-24625-2024,
the present petitions deserve dismissal.
7. I have heard submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the case files.
8. It is not disputed by learned State counsel that accused Bal Singh
@ John is in custody since 04.05.2021 and Sanjeev Kumar was arrested on
29.04.2021. In the case in hand, FIR was lodged by Balinder Singh son of
Dayala Ram (PW-6), who has not supported the prosecution version. Neel
Kamal Chawla - father of the deceased was examined as PW-9. He has also
not supported the prosecution version. Sonu (PW-10) has also been declared
hostile. From their cross-examination, nothing substantive has come on
record against the accused. Two out of four accused i.e. Gourav Kumar and
Sahil @ Aman have already been released on interim bail while other two
accused persons namely Bal Singh @ John and Sanjeev Kumar are in
custody for the last more than three years.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances that
complainant - father of the deceased has not supported the prosecution
version, custody of petitioners and completion of trial will also take a long
time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner(s) behind
bars for a long time.
10. Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, all
the four petitions are allowed. The interim orders dated 25.04.2024 and
29.05.2024 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-52789-
2022 and CRM-M-26431-2024, thereby releasing accused Gourav Kumar
CRM-M-52789-2022, CRM-M-24625-2024,
and Sahil @ Aman respectively on interim bail are hereby made absolute.
Remaining two petitioners i.e. Bal Singh @ John @ Vicky in CRM-M-
24625-2024 and Sanjeev Kumar in CRM-M-34224-2024 are directed to be
released on regular bail, on their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds, to the
satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. The
petitioner(s) shall also abide by the following conditions :-
1. The petitioner(s) shall surrender their
passport and shall not leave the country without
the prior permission of the Trial Court.
2. The petitioner(s) shall give their
mobile numbers to the Trial Court and get the
same registered, on which SMS shall be received
from the CIS and shall not change their mobile
number during pendency of the case.
3. The petitioner(s) shall not change
their residence without prior intimation to the
concerned Police Station and the Trial Court.
4. The petitioner(s) shall appear before
the Trial Court on each and every date of hearing.
11. The Trial Court is at liberty to impose any other condition that it
may deem appropriate. It is further clarified that in case of default of any of
the conditions, the concerned Court is competent to cancel the bail granted
to the petitioner(s).
12. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be
an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations
CRM-M-52789-2022, CRM-M-24625-2024,
recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail
petition(s).
13. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with the
present petition.
14. A copy of this judgment be placed on the files of other connected
matters.
September 02, 2024 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
