Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chanan Singh Alias Chaan vs State Of Haryana And Another on 23 January, 2025
Author: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Bench: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010527
CRA-S No.3548-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
219+106
CRA-S No.3548-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.01.2025
Chanan Singh @ Chaan ..... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU
Present: Mr. Akash Manocha, Advocate and
Ms. Lishika Mehta, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Ashok Singh Chaudhry, Addl.A.G, Haryana.
Ms. Nisha Rana, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
CRM-2233-2025
Second application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for placing on record additional
documents i.e A-15 to A-21.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed as
prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Additional documents (A-15 to
A-21) are taken on record.
Registry to tag the same at appropriate place.
Main Case
Present appeal has been filed for setting aside of order dated
01.10.2024 (A-1), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad,
whereby, application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) for grant of bail pending trial to the appellant in
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 27-01-2025 23:39:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010527
CRA-S No.3548-2024 2
FIR No.197 dated 21.04.2020, under Sections 307, 120-B, 323, of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC‘) [Section 302, 212 of IPC & Section 3 of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities),
Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the SC&ST Act’) added later on and Section 307 IPC
deleted], registered at Police Station City, District Fatehabad, was dismissed.
2. Allegations are that appellant in criminal conspiracy with co-
accused caused injuries on the person of deceased-Kulwant Singh (father of
de facto complainant-Palwinder Singh being member of Scheduled caste by
hitting his scooty with tractor bearing No.HR-22G-3509 and he succumbed
to injuries received in this incident.
3. Contends that appellant is not named in the FIR; rather
nominated on the basis of second disclosure made by co-accused Kuldeep
Singh. Further contends that no role/injury has been attributed to the
appellant. Also contends that co-accused Dara Singh has been granted bail
pending trial by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 23.07.2024, passed
in CRA-S-2002-2024. Lastly contends that appellant is in custody since
24.04.2020; final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C has already been filed
before the Court of competent jurisdiction; charges have been framed on
16.04.2021 and he is not involved in any other criminal case.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the
prayer while submitting that allegations against the appellant are serious in
nature; hence, he does not deserve the concession of bail pending trial.
Again submitted that de facto complainant and eye-witness are yet to be
examined; therefore, in case appellant is released on bail, there is likelihood
of influencing the prosecution witnesses and hampering the fair trial.
Lastly submits that similar appeal of appellant for grant of bail pending trial
was dismissed by this Court on 21.03.2024 and there is no change in
2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 27-01-2025 23:39:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010527
CRA-S No.3548-2024 3
circumstances, since then.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 has also
supported the stand taken by learned State counsel and submitted that co-
accused Dara Singh had again fired a gunshot towards the house of
complainant/informant and in this regard FIR No.0518 dated 26.10.2020,
under Sections 285 & 427 read with Section 34 IPC; and Sections 25 & 27
of the Arms Act, at Police Station City, District Fatehabad, was registered
against him along with other two accused.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-
book.
7. It transpires that earlier also, appellant approached this Court
for grant of bail pending trial in CRM-M-27005-2020, which was dismissed
as withdrawn vide order dated 14.09.2020; CRM-M-29128-2020 which was
dismissed vide order dated 08.10.2021; CRM-M-26629-2023 which was
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.02.2024, with liberty to file
appeal under the SC&ST Act; and CRA-S-595-2024 which was dismissed
on 21.03.2024.
Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any
changed circumstances in favour of the appellant, after the dismissal of
CRA-S-595-2024 (ibid).
8. Still further, charges against the appellant are very serious in
nature; therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant him bail pending trial.
9. Consequently, there is no option, except to dismiss the appeal
“at this stage”.
10. Ordered accordingly.
11. The above observations be not construed as an expression of
opinion on merits of the case in any manner.
3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 27-01-2025 23:39:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010527
CRA-S No.3548-2024 4
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
23.01.2025 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU)
Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 27-01-2025 23:39:38 :::
[ad_1]
Source link