Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vishant vs State Of Haryana on 14 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003956
CRM-M No.356 of 2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
223
*****
CRM-M No.356 of 2025
Date of decision : 14.1.2025
Vishant .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Manoj Pundir, Advocate and
Mr. Shalender Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner
Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.306 dated 28.9.2023, under
Sections 302, 307, 506, 120-B, 34 of the IPC (during investigation
Sections 148, 149 of IPC were deleted and Sections 120-B and 34 of IPC
were added), registered at Police Station Kalayat, District Kaithal.
2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present
petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-
'Copy of writing is as under:- To, The SHO, Police station Kalayat, Sir it
is requested I Deepak Kumar S/o Dehsraj am resident of village Batta,
Patti Badi Aal, District Kaithal. I am a liquer contracter. On 26.09.2023,
Shakti son of Jabra resident of village Batta had a dispute with Nakul S/o
Beer Singh resident of Batta. In this regard, on the complaint of Nakul a
case was registered at police station Kalayat against Shakti and others.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003956
Today on 28.09.2023 at around 4 PM I came out from my house for a walk
in the street and went towards dharma wala chowk Batta, Nathwan Patti,
then I heard the sound of a fast moving vehicle and two motorcycle were
going ahead of the above mention vehicle. In which on one motorcycle
Avtar @ Sahil S/O Rajesh, age 17 years, resident of village Batta was
riding who is my grandson in relation and on another motorcycle Shakti
S/o Jabra resident of village Batta was riding, they both were nervous and
was followed by a vehicle whose number HR31K2289 Maruti Ciaz of
white in colour and window glasses of same was open. In the said car five
boys were sitting with sticks in their hands, were shouting from the
window of the car. Ajay S/o Om Parkash resident of was driving the said
car and driver of car along with his associates hit the motorcycle of Sahil
from behind with the intention to kill Shakti and Sahil, due to collision
Sahil fallen down in the street with his motorcycle and shakti suddenly
turned his motorcycle to the left side street, to save himself from the
vehicle. From the car, Nakul S/o Beer Singh, Yogesh @ Chiku S/o
Shyamlal, Ajay S/o Om Parkash, Honey S/o Shiv Kumar @ Kaka,
residents of Batta and Nakul's maternal uncle's son Nishant Rana got out
with sticks in their hands and checked Sahil and said that he is dead now
they will kill Shakti and his other friends and fled away from the spot in
car with their sticks. I reached at the spot and managed Sahil and me and
my family members after arranging a private vehicle brought Sahil to
Cygnus Hospital, Kaithal, where doctors checked Sahil and declared him
dead. The above-mentioned people made conspiracy and with the intention
of killing both of them, they hit him with the car and Shakti survived
because of turning his motorcycle but he was threatened to kill. Strict legal
action should be taken against the accused. Sd/- Deepak Kumar S/o
Deshraj, resident of Badi Aal, Patti Batta, District Kaithal.'
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
is in custody since 2.10.2023. Learned counsel has further submitted that,
assuming arguendo, the case of the prosecution is taken to be correct, the
only role attributed to the petitioner is that he was sitting in the car in
question which has allegedly hit the deceased on account of which he has
passed away. Learned counsel has further submitted that it is not the case
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003956
of the prosecution that the petitioner was driving the car in question which
is stated to have allegedly hit the deceased. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely
implicated into the FIR in question on account of a rivalry between
another co-accused namely Nakul and the complainant-side. Thus, regular
bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by
arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the
petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned
State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 13.1.2025
in Court, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the
available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 2.10.2023 whereinafter
investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 13.12.2023.
Total 33 prosecution witnesses have been cited out of which only one
witness namely the FIR-complainant has been examined in-chief
whereinafter application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred
for summoning of additional accused. It is thus, indubitable, that
culmination of trial will take long. The rival contention of learned counsel
for the parties; as to what is the exact role of the petitioner into the alleged
offence, whether the petitioner is culpable for the alleged offence by
virtue of Sections 120-B, 34 of IPC, as also whether the petitioner has
been falsely implicated into the FIR in question on account of a rivalry
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003956
between co-accused namely Nakul (who is cousin of the petitioner) and
the complainant-side; shall be gone into during the course of trial. These
are essentially matters debatable issues which have to be ratiocinated
upon during trial proceedings. This Court does not deem it appropriate to
delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice
the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the
likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or
interfering with the prosecution evidence. As per custody certificate dated
13.1.2025 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already
suffered incarceration for a period of more than one year and three
months.
As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is said to be
involved in other FIR(s) also. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are
required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition
preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by
itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR
in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR
in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR.
Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and
another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of
the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2)
RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-
2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003956
29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal)
191.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial
is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds
to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However,
in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned
CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or
documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before
the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial
Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the
Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall
not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of
the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those
which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed
hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the
State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003956
petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
14.1.2025
Ashwani
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
