Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harish @ Bajrangi vs State Of Haryana on 20 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007823
CRM-M--1850-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
217-1 CRM-M-1850-2024
Date of decision: 20.01.202
.2025
Harish alias Bajrangi
....Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG Haryana.
Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Advocate for the complainant.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.,
1973 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.
No.532
532
dated 12.09.2022,
12.09.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307,
323, 325, 302, 34 and 120-B
120 of IPC at Police Station City Jagadhri, District
Yamunanaga
Yamunanagar.
2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present
petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-
follows:
“The copied document is as follows. Monu Khan S/o Mustaq Khan Ambasi
Muslim H. NO. 592 Manohar Colony Jagadhri Police Station City
Jagadhri
ri District Yamunanagar Age 24 years Said that I am a resident of
the above name address and work as a labourer. Shia, Sachin etc. fight
with my friend Harvinder alias Kantu a few days ago and they hurt Kantu.
There was a rivalry going on between my friend
friendss Kantu and Shiva, Sachin
over this issue. Due to this, Kanhaiya Lal alias Vikram Baba, resident of
Manohar Colony, started telling me that you should get the matter
compromised between these two parties so that no one gets harmed. Due
to this, on 11.09.22 at around 10.35 PM in the night, I my friends Chetan,
resident of Ganga Nagar Colony, had gone to Manohar Colony near
Shiva and Sachin’s house, where on the instigation of Kanhaiya Lal alias
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-01-2025 00:48:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007823CRM-M–1850-2024 2
Vikram, Shia, Sachin, resident of Manohar Colony and Bajrangi
immediately
mediately attacked with their wapons in there hands. All three of them
attacked me with intention to kill me, my friend Chetan ran away in fear as
soon as he saw them and Sachin attacked me fatally on both my legs with
the rod he held in his hand and Shiva hit me in the head with the pointed
rod he held in his hand. Bajrangi had attacked with the intention of killing
me. Bajrangi had hit me on both my arms with the iron held in his hand.
They all, together have made a fatal attack on me, breaking both my legs
le
and arms, and inflicting severe injuries on my head and body. I also got
hit a lot on other parts of my body and I started shouting loudly, then
seeing the people coming at the spot, all the above mentioned three boys
ran away from the spot along with ttheir
heir weapons, then my elder brother
Akbar, after getting the information, came to the spot from where I was
found injured. I was picked up and brought to Civil Hospital Trauma
Center Yamuna Nagar for treatment, where I am admitted to the hospital
for treatment.
ment. You take the strictest legal action against Shiva, Sachin,
Bajrangi, these three killed me on the instigation of Kanhaiya Lal alias
Vikram. Has attacked with the intention of. Killing them on the
investigation of kanahiya Lal alias Vikram I have writ
written
ten my note to you in
front of my brother Akbar.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
is in custody since 17.09.2022. Learned counsel has further submitted that
all private prosecution witnesses have been examined and thus, there is no
allegation against the petitioner interfering
interfering in the substantial prosecution
evidence. Learned counsel has further iterated that, victim namely Monu
Khan (before his death) had made a statement to the police culling out
therein a specific role of the petitioner having caused injuries to him,
however,
wever, the statement recorded by the deceased (Monu Khan) was when
the deceased (Monu Khan) was not in a fit medical state to make statement.
In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred, in extenso, to
the testimony of Dr. Shubham Lagyan
Lagyan (PW
(PW-9)
9) as also ASI Jasmer Singh
(PW-6).
6). Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-01-2025 00:48:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007823
CRM-M–1850-2024 3
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition arguing
that the allegations raised are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has
referred to short reply by way of affidavit of Rajesh Kumar, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar
Nagar-II,
II, relevant whereof reads as
under:
“4 That on the basis of aforesaid statement of injured Monu Khan
and MLR, present FIR No. 532, dt. 12
12-09-2022,
2022, u/s 323, 325, 307, 34,
120-B IPC was registered at Police station City Jagadhri. After
registration of case, investigation was carried out. During course of
investigation, statement of witnesses were recorded, place of occurrence
was inspected.
5 That due to injuries sustained in the afo
aforesaid
resaid occurrence, the
injured Monu Khan died, so section 302 IPC was inserted and section 307
IPC was deleted. The proceeding u/s 174 Cr.P.C. was conducted and after
getting the postmortem conducted, dead body of deceased Monu Khan was
handed over to his relatives. The photocopy of postmortem report is
enclosed herewith as Annexure R–2.
6 That co-accused
accused Sachin and Shiva, Harish alias Bajrangi
(petitioner) were arrested on 17
17-09-2022
2022 and accused Kanhiya was
arrested on 18-09-2022.
7 That the petitioner and
nd above named accused persons were
interrogated and they admitted the offence committed by them. The
petitioner was interrogated and he admitted the offence committed by him
and disclosed that he along with his friend Sachin, Shiva and Shivam
Kamboj caused
d the occurrence and murder Monu Khan. The petitioner
also disclosed that he had attacked with iron rod, which was brought by
him from the house of Shiva, on the hands of deceased Monu Khan with
intention to kill him. The true translated copy of discloser statement of
petitioner is enclosed herewith as Annexure R
R-3.
8 That the accused Sachin as per his disclosure statement got
recovered iron rod, the accused Shiva as per his disclosure statement got
recovered sharp point iron rod. The petitioner as per his disclosure
statement got recovered iron rod which was used in tthe
he offence. The true
translated copy of recovery memo is enclosed herewith as Annexure R
R–4.
9- That during course of investigation, Akbar s/o Mustak Khan handed
over a pen drive on 06-10-2022
2022 containing three videos of the occurrence3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-01-2025 00:48:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007823CRM-M–1850-2024 4
and also handed over a DVD. In one video, a person is seen coming near
Activa scooter standing in the street, in second video the injured Monu
Khan is seen lying on land and it is seen that his left leg has seen fractured
and in third video, the injured Monu Khan seen lying on land. The said
pen drive and DVD were taken into police possession.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx
13 That after completing the investigation challan was submitted
against petitioner and co-accused
accused on 09
09-12-2022.
2022. The charges have been
framed
med against petitioner and co
co-accused u/s 120- B, 323, 325, 302, 34
IPC on 20-02-2023.
2023. In the present case there are total 22 prosecution
witness and out of them 9 (nine) prosecution witness have been examined.
Now the case is fixed for 26-09-2024
2024 for PWS.
14 That no other criminal case has been found registered against
petitioner.”
Learned State counsel has raised submissions in tandem with
the status report and has sought for rejection of the petition in hand.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have
perused the available record.
6. The grant of bail falls within the discretionary domain of the
court; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and
principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal pprecedents
recedents and
the interests of justice. While considering a bail application, the court must
evaluate factors such as the existence of prima facie evidence implicating the
accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, and the severity of the
likely
ly sentence upon conviction. The court must also assess the likelihood of
the accused absconding or evading the due process of law, the probability of
the offence being repeated, and any reasonable apprehension of the accused
tampering with evidence or influencing
influencing witnesses. Additionally, the
character, antecedents, financial means, societal standing, and overall
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-01-2025 00:48:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007823
CRM-M–1850-2024 5
conduct of the accused play a crucial role. Furthermore, the court must
weigh the potential danger of bail undermining the administration of justice
justi
or thwarting its due course. A profitable reference in this regard is made to
the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State through
C.B.I. vs. Amaramani Tripathi,
Tripathi, 2005 AIR Supreme Court 3490, relevant
whereof reads as under:
14. It iss well settled that the matters to be considered in an application
for bail are (i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused hadcommitted the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of
the charge; (iii) severity of thepunis
thepunishment
hment in the event of conviction; (iv)
danger of accused absconding or fleeing ifreleased on bail; (v) character,
behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the
offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of thewitn
thewitnesses
esses being
tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted bygrant
of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal)
377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi
Administration), AIR 1978 Suprem
Supreme Court 179).
). While a vague allegation
that accused may tamper with the evidence orwitnesses may not be a ground
to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that hismere presence at
large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to sh
show
ow thathe will
use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will
berefused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or
refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2)
RCR (Criminal)
nal) 254 (SC) :2004(7) SCC 528 :”The law in regard to grant or
refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its
discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the
stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate
documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need
to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was
being granted particularly where the accused is charged of havi
having
ng committed
a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-
non
application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to
consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before
granting bail; they are:
a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of
conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-01-2025 00:48:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007823
CRM-M–1850-2024 6
b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension
ofthreat to the complainant.
c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (see Ram
GovindUpadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 (SC) :
2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 801
(SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338.”
This Court also in specific terms held that :
“the condition laid down under section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for granting
bail even under section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order it is noticed
that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone
by the accused and the unlikelihood
ihood of trial concluding in the near future as
grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the
accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even
death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused
has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by
itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that
the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself
self or
coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the
appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there
are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the
period he was on bail.”
In Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra, 2005(1) Apex Criminal 319 :
2005(1) RCR(Criminal) 712 (SC) : 2005(3) SCC 143, this Court observed :
“The object underlying the cancellation of bail is to protect the fair trial
and secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused who
is set at liberty by the bail order from tampering with the evidence in the
heinous crime….. It hardly requires to be stated that once a person is
released on bail in serious criminal cases where the punishment is quite
stringent and deterrent, the accused in order to get away from the clutches
of the same indulge in various activities like tampering with the
prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased
victim and also create problems
roblems of law and order situation.”
7. The petitioner is accused of committing a capital offence and is
facing trial therein. A perusal of the statement got recorded by the victim
Monu Khan, before his death, falling within the ambit of a dying declara
declaration,
tion,
unequivocally attributes an active role to the petitioner inflicting injuries that
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-01-2025 00:48:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007823
CRM-M–1850-2024 7
culminated in deceased’s demise. The arguments advanced on behalf of the
petitioner regarding the evidentiary value of such a statement, in light of
alleged inconsistencies
inconsistencies in the testimonies of Dr. Shubham Lagyan (PW-9)
(PW
and ASI Jasmer Singh (PW-6),
(PW 6), does not warrant meticulous scrutiny by this
Court at this stage. Such contentions pertain to evidentiary appreciation;
which squarely falls within the domain of the trial Court. The perceived
discrepancies or contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence, cannot be
looked into at this stage. Delving deep into alleged inconsistencies at this
stage, undermines the judicial process, and is an attempt at pre
pre-empting
empting the
findings
ngs of the trial Court. Such considerations are matter strictly reserved
for the stage of trial and not for this court to be looked into at this stage.
7.1. Indeed, the petitioner has suffered incarceration for about 02
years and 04 months but the same factum
factum by itself is not sufficient to extend
the concession of regular bail to the petitioner, particularly, in light of the
fact that there is nothing to arrive at the conclusion that trial is getting
unduly delayed. The mere duration of incarceration, sta
standing
nding alone, does not
constitute a compelling ground for the grant of regular bail, especially in
light of the gravity of the allegations and the evidence on record.
Furthermore, as per the custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be
involved in one
one more case (i.e. FIR No.289/2020 under Sections 148, 149,
323, 452, 427, 506 of IPC at Police Station City Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar.)
Nagar.
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does
not deserve the concession of regular bail.
8. In view of the seriousness of the allegations coupled with the
nature of evidence as also the antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is of
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-01-2025 00:48:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007823
CRM-M–1850-2024 8
the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of
regular bail. Accordingly, the
the petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is
hereby dismissed.
9. Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove
shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigating agency
as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without
being influenced with this order.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
January 20,
20 2025
Ajay
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-01-2025 00:48:35 :::
[ad_1]
Source link