Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hari Om vs State Of Haryana on 5 July, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084363
CRM-M-24183-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
256 CRM-M-24183-2024
Date of Decision: 05.07.2024
Hari Om ...Pe oner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Ms. Radhika Mehta, Advocate for
Mr. Gautam Du+, Advocate for the pe oner.
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Sr. D.A.G, Haryana.
Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate
for the complainant.
******
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta0on Sec0ons 18 06.02.2020 Sadar Rewari, District Rewari 302, 307, 120-B, 34 IPC
1. The pe oner incarcerated in the FIR cap oned above has come up before this Court under Sec on 439 CrPC seeking bail.
2. In paragraph 16 of the bail applica on, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offences Police
Sta on
1. 42 18.02.2020 25 of Arms Act Line Par,
Bhadurgarh
2. 235 21.08.2020 302, 307, 148, 149, 120-B, 216 Sector 9-A,
IPC and 25 (1B), (a), 27 (1), 29 (b) Gurugram
of the Arms Act
3. 119 06.02.2020 201, 285, 395, 397 IPC and 25 of Sadar
the Arms Act Bhiwani
4. 23 06.02.2020 323, 324, 341, 506 IPC Sector 9-A,
Gurugram
5. 52 2021 147, 148, 323, 506 IPC Sector
Bhondsi
1
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 03:06:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084363
CRM-M-24183-2024
3. The prosecu on's case is being taken from paragraphs 4 to 6 of reply dated 14.06.2024 filed by the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police, which reads as follows:
"4. That the facts forming genesis of the present case are that the law was set in mo on on the basis of complaint moved by complainant Ashok Kumar @ Bhadhu son of Prakash Chand, resident of Gokalgarh, District Rewari, wherein he alleged that "He was running a hotel on the Na onal Highway 47 in the name and style of Bhole Nath and on the fateful day of 05.02.2020, he had gone in village Jat Bharthal in order to a/end the Lagan ceremony of his companion Dinesh. A1er taking the meal, he came out of the house of Dinesh and met Mori Lalit and his friends. When they were talking each other, the sound of gunshot was beard all of a sudden. Within a frac on of second, complainant Ashok Kumar sustained gun shot on the thigh of his right leg, Lalit Mony and Deepak also sustained gunshot injuries and the persons who fired the shots fled away from the spot. The complainant alleged that he inquired at his own level and found that Hari Om (Pe oner), Amit and Pawan along with their accomplices fired the shots at them with the inten on to kill him and Lalit @ Mony. On the basis of the MLR related to the complainant Ashok Kumar and his statement, the instant FIR was got registered under Sec ons 307/34 IPC and Sec on 25 of Arms Act, 1959 and inves ga ons were taken up in the ma/er.
5. That the injured Lalit @ Mony expired on 06.02.2020 due to the gun shot injuries sustained by him. Hence, offence punishable under Sec on 302 IPC was added to the instant FIR.
6. That the pe oner was arrested in FIR No.42 dated 18-02-2020 registered a Police Sta on Line Par, Bahadurgarh and disclose about the present case therea1er on dated 24.02.2023 through produc on warrant and on interroga on he admi/ed his involvement in the present crime and got suffered his disclosure statement. He disclosed that the conspiracy 'was hatched by co-accused at his house in order to avenge the death of his companion Sanju. At the me of hatching the conspiracy, Amit, Pawan, Rohit, Rahul, Sukha, Kapil, Sunil Sonu and Rajeev were also with him. The pe oner disclosed that as per the conspiracy, all the assailants went to the spot in a blue coloured 2 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 03:06:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084363 CRM-M-24183-2024 Swi1 car driven by him and an 1-20 car driven by Rajeev @ Raju. On the basis of the above disclosure statement of the pe oner, offence punishable under Sec on 120B IPC was added to the instant FIR."
4. The pe oner contends that the pre-trial incarcera on would cause an irreversible injus ce to the pe oner and family.
5. While opposing bail, the conten ons on behalf of the State are that given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail.
REASONING:
6. Counsel for the pe oner has argued that the pe oner was not named ini ally and his name has been surfaced on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. He further argued that even if all the allega ons are taken as true, s ll the pe oner did not come out of the car which shows that he never intended to fire and the evidence come in the shape of disclosure statement is inadmissible.
7. The next argument of pe oner's counsel is that the recovery of country made pistol and two cartridges on the disclosure statement is not connected with the present case and the pe oner has been acqui+ed in the said FIR and there is no evidence to connect the said pistol with the present case. Pe oner's counsel further submits that as per the prosecu on's case Amit Kataria @ Kalu was the conspirator and main accused and the pe oner has only been shown to be present, even Test Iden fica on Parade (TIP) was not conducted during the inves ga on, so iden fica on of pe oner is in ques on as an accused. The pe oner's next argument is that the deceased Lalit @ Moni was a history-sheeter and was involved in various cases including two of murder cases which show that there were so many people who had mo ve to kill him and the pe oner cannot be held responsible.
8. State counsel has argued based on the reply and submits that the pe oner is main accused and the en re conspiracy was hatched by co-accused at his house in order to avenge the death of his companion Sanju. He further submits that the pe oner did not come out of the car does not mean that he was not involved because the offence under Sec on 120-B and Sec on 34 of IPC are also in FIR which shows common inten on and criminal conspiracy. Regarding the acqui+al and recovery of country made pistol from the pe oner, State counsel submits that hypothe cally if the weapon is not recovered in any cases, it would not be a ground for automa c acqui+al and he submits that the trial is going on and they always have a right to file an applica on for addi onal evidence ll the pronouncement of the judgment. Hence, the pe oner is not en tled 3 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 03:06:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084363 CRM-M-24183-2024 for grant of bail only on the grounds that he was acqui+ed for recovery of country made pistol.
9. In Paramjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022:PHHC:003983 [Para 8], CRM-M 50243 of 2021, this court observed, While considering each bail pe on of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the an thesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Informa on Reports, wherein the bail pe oner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecu ons resul ng in acqui+al or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecu on stands withdrawn, or prosecu on filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles.
10. The pe oner has criminal history of heinous and grave crimes. The pe on does not refer to any averment based on which this court is assured that if this recidivist is released on bail, then he shall not indulge in criminal behavior.
11. An analysis of all the above said arguments and counter arguments would lead to the following outcome.
12. It has come in the statement of PW-7 that three persons namely Pawan, Hari Om (pe oner) and Rajeev Katariya were firing and he properly iden fied all the three persons in the Court. I have also gone through the cross-examina on of PW-7 and its detailed analysis might cause prejudice to the accused but it is sufficient to say that there is prima facie evidence qua presence of pe oner Hari Om ac vely par cipa ng in the crime. The prosecu on has been launched with the aid of common inten on and criminal conspiracy and further there is evidence that conspiracy was hatched in the pe oner's home. He had also accompanied the other accused and ac vely par cipated which is sufficient to a+ract Sec on 34 IPC and the commission of conspiracy at his home is also prima facie sufficient compliance of Sec on 120-B IPC. Thus on merits the pe oner is not en tled to bail. As per paragraph 8 of the reply, the pe oner is involved in other criminal cases, out of which one under Sec on 302 IPC, one under Sec on 395 IPC and two cases under Sec on 506 IPC and this shows that the pe oner has a criminal mind set and even when the Court had granted him bail in the first case, he took advantage of such liberty and indulged in more and more crimes. If this Court grants him bail, there is all possibility that the pe oner will indulge in more criminal ac vi es, which will impact and affect the innocent people, as such, the pe oner is not en tled to bail even on the grounds of his criminal history.
44 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 03:06:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084363 CRM-M-24183-2024
13. A perusal of the bail pe on and the documents a+ached, primafacie points towards the pe oner's involvement and does not make out a case for bail and he is neither en tled to bail on merits nor on the grounds of prolonged pre-trial incarcera on. Any further discussions are likely to prejudice the pe oner; this court refrains from doing so.
14. Any observa on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
15. The pe00on is dismissed. All pending applica ons, if any, stand closed. However, considering the pe oner's right to speedy trial coupled with the pre-trial incarcera on, it is clarified that if the trial is not concluded within six months, and if the delay is not a+ributable to the pe oner, then the pe oner may file an applica on for bail before the trial court, which shall decide it expedi ously and consider the bail on the grounds of pre-trial custody, and all the previous orders of dismissal passed by the trial court or High Court shall not come in the way. It is clarified that this relaxa on is subject to the condi on that neither the pe oner shall seek any adjournment nor try to use any tac cs to delay the trial, and if they do so, this order shall stand recalled automa cally.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
05.07.2024
Jyo -II
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
5
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 03:06:50 :::