Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charanjeet @ Charna vs State Of Haryana on 16 January, 2025
Author: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Bench: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006264
CRM-M No.23334-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
212
CRM-M No.23334-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 16.01.2025
Charanjeet @ Charna .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU
Present: Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Singh Chaudhry, Addl.A.G, Haryana.
*****
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
Present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for seeking bail pending trial in FIR No.64 dated
28.02.2022, registered under Sections 302, 323, 427, 451, 458, 148 read
with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC‘), at Police
Station Sector 13-17, District Panipat.
2. Brief allegations, noticed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge/Judge, Childrens’ Court, Panipat in para No.2 of the impugned order
dated 11.03.2024 are as under:
“According to the complaint of the complainant
Ronak son of Dalip Singh, resident of village Mohana, Police
Station, Mohana, District Sonepat, he is working in the office of
Flipkart at Sector 13-17, Panipat and now he is living with his
family at Azad Nagar, Panipat since last fifteen years. On
27.08.2022 at night time, he got a call from his brother-in-law
Mukesh son of Rajbir Singh, resident of village Ahar that his
father Rajbir Singh son of Risal Singh was badly beaten in Devi
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:23:13 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006264CRM-M No.23334-2024 2
Lal Park and he got a call from his father, who asked him to
reach at Devi Lal Park. On which, he and his brother-in-law
Krishna son of Jai Kishan, resident of Pangala, Police Station,
Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal, who, at present lives in Shiv
Nagar, reached Devi Lal Park in the night itself, where, his
father-in-law Rajbir Singh was lying smeared with blood, who
has severe injuries on his head and forehead. Ramesh son of
Raja Ram was also sustained minor injuries. After arranging
the Ambulance, they were going to Civil Hospital with injured,
then, his father Rajbir Singh has informed by giving signal
towards his injuries that Ramesh has caused the injuries to his
father-in-law Rajbir. Later on, he was admitted in the Prem
Hospital, Panipat where his father-in- law was died. Ramesh
has committed the murder of his father-in-law. Legal action may
kindly be taken against the accused. On this complaint, formal
FIR no. 64 dated 28.02.2022 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 427,
451, 458, 302 IPC was got lodged with Police Station, Sector
13-17, Panipat. ”
3. Contends that petitioner was arrested in the present case on
29.03.2022 and after remaining in custody for about 02 years and 08 months,
he was granted interim bail by this Court on 04.12.2024. Further contends
that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, he is regularly appearing before
learned Children Court and there has been no progress of trial. Again
contends that main prosecution witness Wasim Khan is not supporting the
charge against petitioner and there is no allegation that he is likely to misuse
the concession and/or hamper the proceedings in any manner, in case
released on bail.
4. Per contra, learned State Counsel, on instructions from quarter
concerned, has fairly acknowledged the above factual position and submits
that petitioner is regularly appearing before learned Children Court. He also
acknowledged that petitioner has not misused the concession of interim bail
in any manner.
5. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the paper
book.
2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:23:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006264
CRM-M No.23334-2024 3
6. This Court granted interim bail to the petitioner on 04.12.2024
and order reads as under:-
“While making reference to the testimony dated 21.03.2024
(P-21) of PW14 Wasim Khan, contends that there is not even a
whisper regarding the role of petitioner; nor the said witness has
stated that petitioner was present at the time of occurrence or that he
had participated in the alleged crime.
Faced with the situation, learned State counsel seeks time to
have instructions.
Posted for 16.01.2025.
In the meanwhile, petitioner be released on interim bail in the
present case, till the next date of hearing, on furnishing adequate
bail and surety bonds subject to the satisfaction of learned trial
Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.”
7. Learned State counsel has duly acknowledged that petitioner is
regularly appearing before learned Children Court and there is no allegation
that in case, interim bail is made absolute, he is likely to misuse the
concession and/or hamper the proceedings in any manner. Only five
prosecution witnesses have been examined till today; thus, trial is likely to
take sufficient long time. In such a scenario, sending the petitioner to
custody at this stage would not serve any purpose.
8. Consequently, present petition is allowed. Interim bail granted
to the petitioner, vide order dated 04.12.2024, is made absolute. He shall be
admitted to bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned
Children Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Court concerned.
9. Petitioner shall appear on each & every date of hearing and to
fully co-operate with learned Children Court without seeking any
unnecessary adjournment(s).
10. The above observations be not construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
11. It is clarified that in case there is any misuse of concession by
the petitioner, State would be at liberty to move an appropriate application
3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:23:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006264
CRM-M No.23334-2024 4
for recalling of this order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
16.01.2025 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU)
Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2025 00:23:14 :::
[ad_1]
Source link