Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dhanna Ram vs State Of Haryana on 25 September, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
CRM-M-36112-2024 1
227
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-36112-2024
Decided on : 25.09.2024
DHANNA RAM
. . . Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
. . . Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Sourabh Shoran, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner
in case FIR No.291 dated 07.11.2019, registered under Sections 379A, 427, 506 of
IPC at Police Station Sadar Narnaul, District Mahendergarh.
2. The brief facts of the present case are on 06.11.2019, at around 10:00
P.M., complainant Ajay Kumar was returning home in his car after collecting cash
from his father's liquor shop. When he reached near the village Pond, a Bolero
Camper, occupied by Tiger, Kuku, Mada Ram, and Kapoor hit his car and the
occupants of the Bolero Camper snatched ₹43,000 after threatening and assaulting
him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that co-accused
Krishan alias Kuku and Pritam alias Tiger were granted bail vide order dated
14.12.2019 and 21.12.2019. He submits that he has been granted regular bail vide
order dated 13.03.2020, however, the petitioner could not appear on 20.12.2023,
thereby his bail was cancelled and non-bailable warrants were issued.
Subsequently, vide order dated 22.05.2024, the petitioner has applied for regular
bail before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, which was dismissed. The
petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of 02 years, 01 month and 26
days and there are 24 other cases registered against him, however in 15 cases he
has been acquitted and in 9 cases, he is on bail.
4. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Krishna Sharma Alias Krishna Kumar Sharma Vs. The State
of West Bengal & Anr. The relevant extract is as under
"However, we find that merely because the appellant did not appear
personally could not have been a ground for cancellation of bail. The
parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are totally
different. The bail already granted may be cancelled, if it is found that
the person who has been granted the benefit of bail has violated any
of the conditions or misused the liberty by influencing the witnesses or
tampering with the evidence."
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As per the custody
certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual custody of 02 years, 01 month and
26 days and there are 24 other cases registered against him, however in 15 cases he
has been acquitted and in 9 cases, he is on bail. However in view of the serious
allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular
bail.
6.
2024.09.25 17:30 Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. The veracity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner shall be
established during the course of the trial. Admittedly, the petitioner has undergone
actual custody of 02 years, 01 month and 26 days and there are 24 other cases
registered against him, however in 15 cases he has been acquitted and in 9 cases,
he is on bail. The further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful
purpose.
8. As regards to the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is
involved in other criminal cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Maulana Mohd.
Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another", 2012(2) SCC 382 has held that the
facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail
application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on
the ground that the petitioner is involved in other case. The relevant portion of the
said judgment is reproduced herein below :-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of
criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent
cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court
to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has
been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of
fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."
9. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may
prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be
released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner
shall also abide by the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness(s).
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed,
unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of
which he is accused of, or for commission of which he is suspected.
(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case
so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
11. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression
of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed
independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the
purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.
(KIRTI SINGH)
25.09.2024 JUDGE
Kavita
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
