Harjaap Singh Alias Harjap Singh vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 17655 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Harjaap Singh Alias Harjap Singh vs State Of Punjab on 23 September, 2024

Author: Suvir Sehgal

Bench: Suvir Sehgal

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125467



CRM-M-32939-2024                                                     1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

207                                      CRM-M-32939-2024
                                         Date of decision: 23.09.2024


Harjaap Singh @ Harjap Singh
                                                              ... Petitioner

                                   Vs.
State of Punjab
                                                           .... Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

Present :-    Mr. R.S. Bains, Senior Advocate with
              Mr. Amar Jeet, Advocate, for the petitioner.

              Mr. Anil Bansal, DAG, Punjab

SUVIR SEHGAL J. (ORAL)

1. Instant first petition has been filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C., seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in:-

FIR No.      Dated          Police Station       Section
222          14.10.2018    Tripuri, District    302, 34 of IPC
                           Patiala, Punjab

2. Version of the prosecution is that a complaint was received

from Sukhjit Singh, that his younger brother Sukhwinder Singh, who was

working as a Driver with Goel M.G. Gas Focal Point, New Nangal, is

missing. On 13.10.2018, a dead body was recovered, which was

identified by the complainant as that of Sukhwinder Singh and FIR,

Annexure P-1, was registered against unknown persons.

3. Mr. Bains, learned senior counsel for the petitioner urges that

the prosecution does not possess any incriminating material against the

petitioner. He submits that prosecution case is based on the statement of

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125467

one Ved Parkash Gupta, who claims that he overheard a conversation

between the petitioner and co-accused Shanichar that they had throttled

Sukhwinder Singh. He submits that during trial of co-accused, this

witness did not support the prosecution case and Shanichar was acquitted

by judgment dated 12.03.2024, Annexure P-10. Counsel asserts that the

petitioner was working at Oman and although he was in India when the

alleged incident had taken place but he left the country on 29.01.2019

and upon coming to know that he was named as an accused, he filed a

petition for anticipatory bail before this Court and in deference to the

permission given by this Court on 24.11.2023, Annexure P-5, petitioner

surrendered before the trial Court. He submits that charge has been

framed in August, 2024 and no prosecution witness has been examined.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel, upon instructions, submits

that the co-accused, Shanichar alias Chhotu had an affair with the

daughter of Sewa Singh and Sukhwinder Singh deceased came to know

about the relationship. He submits that this was the motive behind the

murder, which was committed with a pre-determined mind. He, however,

could not dispute that the co-accused has been acquitted after trial. As per

his instructions, out of 18 prosecution witnesses, none has been

examined. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner and

submits that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and considering their

submissions, this court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the

concession of bail. The allegations levelled against the petitioner would

remain a subject matter of debate before the trial Court. Petitioner has

been in custody for the last more than 8 months and the prosecution has

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125467

not examined any witness and there is a remote possibility of early

conclusion of the trial.

6. Without adverting to the merits or demerits of the arguments

addressed, petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released

on bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial

Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

7. It is clarified that any observation made hereinabove shall

not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

23.09.2024                                             (SUVIR SEHGAL)
pooja saini                                                 JUDGE


        Whether Speaking/Reasoned                   Yes/No
        Whether Reportable                          Yes/No




                                 3 of 3