Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amit vs State Of Haryana on 23 August, 2022
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(219) CRM-M-20871-2022
Date of Decision: 23.08.2022
Amit --Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana --Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ.
Present:- Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, A.A.G., Haryana.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ.J (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C seeking the benefit of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.284 dated 2.8.2020 under sections 148, 149, 307, 323, 506 I.P.C and sections 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act (charge sheet presented under sections 148, 149, 307, 323, 325, 354-D, 354-A, 216, 506 IPC and sections 25, 27, 29 of Arms Act) registered at Police Station, Sadar Gohana, Sonepat, district Sonepat.
As per factual matrix, the FIR in question was lodged by Baljit son of Hawa Singh. It was alleged by the complainant that on 1.8.2020 wife of his elder son went to plot for putting cow dung. Ankush son of Krishan made some objectionable remarks on her. On account of the same they went to lodge protest in their house and then Ankush and his brother Amit i.e. the present petitioner and four other boys with common intention attacked them. Amit caused a gandasi blow on his hand and foot and Ankush with an intention to kill his son Amarjit fired a shot which hit on the thigh of his son Amarjit. Thereafter, seeing the neighbors the 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 24-08-2022 18:17:14 ::: CRM-M-20871-2022 -2- assailants escaped with their respective weapons. Request was made to take legal action against the culprits.
On the complaint made by the complainant present FIR was registered and investigation commenced. During investigation injured Baljit and Amarjit were medicolegally examined. In all eight accused were named in the FIR and all of them were arrested. Six out of the eight accused were granted bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat and remaining two i.e. the present petitioner Amit and Ankush are behind bars since 3.3.2021. The present petitioner approached learned Fast Track Court, Sonepat for grant of bail, however, after hearing the parties, the same was declined vide order dated 18.4.2022. Aggrieved by the same petitioner has approached this court for grant of bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that there was a simple scuffle among the neighbors due to which the present petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case. To substantiate his arguments of false implication counsel submits that both the complainant and injured i.e. Baljit and Amarjit have been examined by the learned Trial Court and both these witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. Counsel submits that as per the allegations made in the FIR the role attributed to the petitioner was that he was armed with Gandasi and he gave a blow of the same on the hand and foot of the complainant Baljit. Counsel has drawn attention of this court to the MLR of Baljit wherein three injuries have been mentioned and injury no.1 has been shown as a lacerated wound. Counsel submits that the said injury at the most is simple 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 24-08-2022 18:17:14 ::: CRM-M-20871-2022 -3- in nature, however, he submits that as both the complainant and injured have not supported the case of the prosecution, false implication of the petitioner is writ large. He submits that petitioner is behind bars for the last about 1 ½ years. He submits that as the material witnesses already stand examined, possibility of the petitioner influencing the witnesses no more survives. He submits that in the overall facts and circumstances of the case petitioner deserves to be granted bail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that case of the prosecution is based on the statement of eye witnesses and the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR. He submits that there are specific allegations against him of having armed with Gandasi and giving blow of the same on the hand and foot of complainant Baljit. He candidly submits that the complainant has been examined before the Trial Court and as he has not supported the case of prosecution, he has been declared hostile. It is submitted that in all there are 23 prosecution witnesses out of which 5 including the complainant and injured have been examined. He further submits that as per information provided by ASI Krishan petitioner is involved in more case i.e. FIR No.121 dated 3.5.2019 registered at Police Station, Sadar Gohana, however, he is on bail in that case.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the records carefully.
Admittedly, petitioner is behind bars since 3.3.2021. As per case of the prosecution, he caused a Gandasi blow on the hand and foot of complainant Baljit. As per the MLR injury caused to the complainant is a lacerated wound, which is simple in nature. Besides this, both complainant 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 24-08-2022 18:17:14 ::: CRM-M-20871-2022 -4- and injured have already been examined by the learned Trial Court and they have not supported the case of prosecution and thus declared hostile. Out of the total 23 prosecution witnesses 5 including the complainant and injured have already been examined and therefore possibility of the petitioner influencing the material witnesses does not survive any more. The veracity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner would be assessed by the Trial Court only upon conclusion of the trial. This court would refrain itself from commenting on the merits of the case, as the allegations and counter allegations would be assessed only after evaluation of the complete evidence to be led by both the sides before the Trial Court. The trial would take sufficiently long time in its conclusion.
In the totality of facts and circumstances and without making any observation on merits, present petition is allowed. Petitioner be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds subject to satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. Nothing stated herein shall be treated as an expression on the merits of the case.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
JUDGE
23.08.2022
lucky
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 24-08-2022 18:17:14 :::