Thursday, 21, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ansar vs State Of Haryana
2024 Latest Caselaw 16069 P&H

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 16069 P&H
Judgement Date : 3 September, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ansar vs State Of Haryana on 3 September, 2024

Author: Kirti Singh

Bench: Kirti Singh

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114748
CRM-M-30956-2024 (O&M)                                                     1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.210                                       CRM-M-30956-2024 (O&M)
                                                  Date of decision : 03.09.2024

Ansar                                                           ..... Petitioner

                                     VERSUS

State of Haryana                                              ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

Present:      Mr. Afjal Hussain, Advocate and
              Dr. Kirandeep Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.

              Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana.

                                         *****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has

been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.36

dated 04.02.2020, under Sections 302 & 397 of IPC (Section 201 IPC and

Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 added later on), registered at Police

Station Punhana, District Nuh.

2. Succinct factual narrative relevant for the disposal of the instant

petition is that FIR No.36 dated 04.02.2020, under Sections 302 & 397 IPC

was registered at Police Station Punhana on the basis of complaint of Ved

Prakash Soni with the allegations that on 04.02.2024 at about 6-6:15 p.m.,

some unknown persons committed murder of his father namely Govind Ram

Soni (since deceased) by some weapons and snatched valuable ornaments

and fled away. Later on, during the course of investigation, Section 25 of

the Arms Act, 1959 was also added.

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114748

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in this case and has not been named in the FIR.

It has been further argued that after the arrest of the petitioner nothing has

been recovered from him. There is no material on record to connect the

petitioner with the commission of crime, except the disclosure statement,

which is inadmissible in evidence. He further submits that the petitioner has

undergone actual custody of 04 years, 06 months and 23 days and further

detention of the petitioner will not serve any purpose.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that the

petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. As per the

custody certificate which has been taken on record, the petitioner has

undergone actual custody of 04 years, 06 months and 23 days and there is

another case viz. FIR No.64 dated 10.02.2020, under Sections 398 & 401

IPC and Sections 25, 54 & 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered against the

petitioner, in which, he has been convicted and sentenced for a period of 02

years. He on instructions from the concerned investigating officer submits

that all the 31 prosecution witnesses have been examined and now the trial is

near completion.

5. Learned State counsel has further argued on the basis of status

report that the co-accused Akram @ Dhakelu was also taken on production

warrant and during the course of interrogation, Akram @ Dhakelu suffered

disclosure statement vide which he admitted his involvement in the

occurrence of the present case and specifically disclosed that he along with

his co-accused (the present petitioner) looted a bag full of ornaments from

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114748

Govind Ram and on checking the bag, 1.5-2 kg. silver, gold ornaments and

Rs,11,000/- in cash was found. He distributed the silver 500 grams to each

person and he took gold ornaments with him and gave Rs.2,000/- to three of

them and kept Rs.5,000/- for himself. He further disclosed that he had

already got recovered a country made pistol in case FIR No.64 of 2020,

Police Station Nuh. Further, during the course of investigation, CCTV

footage of the occurrence from a CCTV camera installed in a nearby shop

was received. Further, the location of the mobile number issued in the name

of Akram @ Dhakelu was found to be at village Punhana, Tehsil Punhana,

District Mewat at the time of the occurrence. Learned State counsel further

submits that the present petitioner is the main accused who fired upon the

deceased and as per the FSL report, the bullet extracted from the body of the

deceased was fired from the recovered country made pistol.

6. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the

parties.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner has undergone actual custody of 04

years, 06 months and 23 days and there is another case registered against

him. There are serious allegations leveled against the petitioner. All the 31

prosecution witnesses have been examined before the learned trial Court and

thus, it is apparent that the trial is progressed and is at advanced stage and is

nearing conclusion.

8. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal

No.1511 of 2024 titled as Dablu Kuju Vs. State of Jharkhand decided on

12.03.2024, observed as under:-

"The appellant-accused, by way of the present appeal has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114748

17.01.2023 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in B.A. No.11895 of 2022, whereby the High Court has dismissed the said application seeking his release on bail in respect of the FIR being Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No.-238/2022 dated 30.05.2022 registered for the offences under Sections 302, 120B/34 of IPC and Section 25(1-B) A/26/27/35 of the Arms Act.

3. During the course of arguments, it was apprised to the Court that the trial is at the fag end and almost all the witnesses have been examined by the prosecution except one witness.

4. In view of the above, we are not inclined to release the appellant on bail, more particularly, when the trial is at the fag end."

9. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence and without

commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view

that at this point of time when the trial is nearing conclusion no case is made

out for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present

petition is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.



                                                      (KIRTI SINGH)
                                                         JUDGE

03.09.2024
Ramandeep Singh

Whether speaking / reasoned                                    Yes/No

Whether Reportable                                             Yes/No




                                  4 of 4

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter