Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan @ Pandit @ Mahavir vs State Of Haryana on 27 September, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129883
CRM-M-30816-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-30816-2024
Reserved on: 09.09.2024
Pronounced on: 27.09.2024
Pawan @ Pandit @ Mahavir ...Pe oner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Advocate and
Mr. Davinder Singh, Advocate,
for the pe oner.
Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, DAG, Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta2on Sec2ons 432 25.09.2019 Sadar Sonipat, District 120-B, 307, 302, 201, 34 IPC and Sonipat (Haryana) Sec on 25 of Arms Act
1. For a triple murder case, of which two were women, and one a child, the pe oner incarcerated in the FIR cap oned above had come up before this Court for the third me, under Sec on 439 CrPC, 1973, seeking regular bail.
2. In paragraph 18 of the bail pe on and as per custody cer ficate filed by the State counsel, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR No. Year Offenses Police Sta2on 1. 411 2011 323, 341, 452, 506, 34 iPC ---- 2. 202 2011 308/34 IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act Mundka, Delhi 3. 270 2011 382/411/34 IPC Rohini 4. 45 2012 392/34 IPC Sultanpuri, Delhi 5. 61 2012 392/397/34 IPC Narela, Delhi 6. 943 2017 392/397/34 IPC and 25/27 of Arms Shahbad Dairy, Act Delhi 7. 204 2012 394/397/34 IPC Begampur, Delhi 8. 24 2019 25/54/59 of Arms Act Bawana, Delhi 9. 03 2019 307, 120-B, 34 IPC and 25, 27 of Bawana Arms Act 10. 545 2017 392, 397, 34 IPC Badli
3. The facts and allega ons are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:
11 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2024 01:03:10 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129883 CRM-M-30816-2024 "2. That briefly sta ng the facts involved in the instant case are that on 25.09.2019, at about 8.10 a.m., ac ng upon an informa on that two females and one child were lying injured near Samunder Singh Akhada at Bhatgaon-Baghru road, police officials rushed to the spot, where it was found that the injured have already been shi*ed to General Hospital, Sonipat for treatment. Therea*er, Head Constable Pardeep was le* at the spot for keeping the place of occurrence safe and remaining police officials rushed to the premises of General Hospital, Sonipat, where the Medical Officer handed over Doctor's Ruqa and three MLRs of injured namely Renu, male baby of Renu and Meenu and also informed that injured Meenu and male baby of Renu have already expired. The parcels handed over by Medical Officer were taken into possession. Therea*er, the vehicle driver of vic ms namely Neeraj son of Ramesh, resident of village Ladpur, at present resident of House No.3333, Housing Board, Sector-9A, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, who had also suffered firearm injury at his hand, met the police officials and said Neeraj was also got examined medico-legally. Therea*er, injured/complainant Neeraj presented a complaint sta ng therein that he is having a car make Ritz bearing registra on No.DL-2CAU-4935 and he used to ply the said car on hire basis. He further stated that Renu wife of Bijender, resident of village Chhuchhakwas, District Jhajjar used to reside in his vicinity in House No.3145, Housing Board, Sector-9A, Bahadurgarh. One known person of said Renu namely Sunder was confined in District Jail, Karnal and Renu used to hire his car for going to Karnal to meet said Sunder. The complainant further stated that on 24.09.2019, at about 10.00 p.m., she made a phone call to him from her mobile phone No.8307337631 and asked him to take her to Karnal on the next morning, on which he went to the house of Renu on the next day at 6.15 a.m., where besides Renu and her five months old baby, Meenu, resident of Silani Gate, Jhajjar and Pawan son of Sagar, resident of village Katewara, Delhi were found present and Renu told him (complainant) that they would also take Ravinder @ Bholu son of Shiv Kumar, resident of village Bhatgaon and his friend Kapil, resident of village Katewara, Delhi from village Bhatgaon, District Sonipat. Therea*er, they all proceeded for village Bhatgaon and on the way, Renu also made phone calls to Ravinder @ Bholu for ascertaining the way to village Bhatgaon. However, when they reached in village Bhatgaon, said Ravinder @ Bholu called them back towards village Baghru road and when they were coming back towards village Baghru, 2 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2024 01:03:11 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129883 CRM-M-30816-2024 Renu saw Ravinder @ Bholu and Kapil and she asked him to stop the car.
A*er stopping the car, Pawan alighted from the car and met with Ravinder and Kapil. Therea*er, Ravinder came near to Renu and fired gunshot at the face of Renu, on which he (complainant) and Meenu got frightened and ran away a*er aligh ng from the car, on which Ravinder came towards him and tried to fire at him, but he caught hold of the weapon carried by Ravinder. Therea*er, Ravinder fired gunshot with an inten on to kill him, but the bullet passed by touching his le* palm and finger and therea*er, he a*er pushing Ravinder ran towards nearby Bajra fields. A*er his running, they all three ran towards Meenu and therea*er, he heard the noise of many gunshots, but he does not know as to who fired those gunshots and at whom. He kept on hiding himself in the fields and a*er some me, he reached near the Car, where several persons were found gathered and he saw that Meenu, Renu and baby of Renu were tormen ng due to bullet injuries. Therea*er, he shi*ed all the injured to General Hospital, Sonipat in his car with the help of local persons, but Meenu and child of Renu breathed their last during treatment, while Renu was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. The complainant further stated that accused Ravinder @ Bholu, Pawan and Kapil fired gunshots at him, Renu, baby of Renu and Meenu with an inten on to kill them, due to which Meenu and baby of Renu have expired. With these allega ons, complainant sought for legal ac on against the culprits. On the basis of said complaint, instant FIR was registered and inves ga on was set into mo on."
4. The pe oner's counsel refers to PW-3 and PW-4, who did not support the prosecu on's case and were declared as hos le witnesses. Counsel for the pe oner argued that pe oner is an innocent person and he was arrested on the disclosure statement of co-accused Ravinder @ Bholu and since 11.09.2020, he is in judicial custody. It is well seBled law that a confession before the police is not admissible in evidence and cannot be proved against him under sec on 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further argued that neither complainant Neeraj iden fied the pe oner nor eye-witness/injured Renu named the pe oner. He further argued that other eye-witness Abhishek @ Shekhu also not iden fied the pe oner as one of the accused in this case. He further argued that the first bail pe on bearing no. CRM-M- 3762/2022 was dismissed vide order dated 24.02.2022 by this Hon'ble Court and co- accused namely Ravinder @ Bholu has been granted regular bail on 01.08.2023 by this Hon'ble Court on the ground of all material witnesses has been examined. He further 3 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2024 01:03:11 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129883 CRM-M-30816-2024 argued that out of total 38 prosecu on witnesses 29 prosecu on witnesses has been examined ll date and remaining witnesses are formal in nature being police officers, who took part in the inves ga on.
5. The pe oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi ons and contends that further pre-trial incarcera on would cause an irreversible injus ce to the pe oner and their family.
6. The State's counsel opposes bail, refers to the reply, and submits that there is sufficient evidence connec ng the pe oner with the heinous crime, and he is not en tled to bail
7. It would be appropriate to refer to the following por ons of the reply, which read as follows:
"12. That there are direct and specific allega ons and sufficient evidence against the pe oner to connect him with the commission of above men oned crime. He is specifically named by the complainant as well as in the statements of witnesses. He hatched the conspiracy to commit the above men oned offence and he was present at the spot at the me of occurrence and was siJng on the motorcycle by keeping its engine started and when accused Ravinder @ Bholu fired gunshots at the deceased persons and injured, pe oner alongwith accused Ravinder @ Bholu fled away from the spot on the said motorcycle. Pe oner had the mo ve to commit the murder of deceased Meenu and injured Renu, as he had planned to take revenge of the death of his nephew Parveen, who allegedly commiKed suicide on account of blackmailing by deceased Meenu and injured Renu. Pe oner purchased the weapon and live cartridges for commiJng the offence in ques on and he handed over the same to accused Ravinder @Bholu and therea*er, above men oned crime was commiKed, which led to loss of two lives of deceased Meenu and five months old son of injured Renu and injures dangerous to life to one person i.e. injured Renu. At the me of occurrence, pe oner took the motorcycle at some distance and remained present on the motorcycle by switching its engine on and told Ravinder, if anybody would intervene, he (pe oner) would caught hold of such person and asked Ravinder to fire shots at deceased and injured and therea*er, they fled away from the spot on motorcycle make Splendor Plus bearing registra on No.DL-13SS-1261, which was got recovered by co-accused Ravinder @ Bholu. All these facts 4 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2024 01:03:11 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129883 CRM-M-30816-2024 have been admiKed by pe oner in his disclosure statement and in pursuance thereof, he got demarcated the place of occurrence. The case is pending for prosecu on evidence and if enlarged on bail, pe oner can tamper with the prosecu on evidence and he can also hamper the trial by absconding from the process of law. Merely on the basis of longevity of incarcera on, pe oner is not en tled to seek the concession of bail as a maKer of right. Thus, keeping in view the seriousness of offence and facts and circumstances of the case, he is not en tled to the relief of bail as claimed for. Custody cer ficate of pe oner is annexed herewith as Annexure-R7."
8. The trial is at the fag end and out of 38 witnesses, the statements of 29 have been recorded. The State's Counsel assured that they shall not delay the trial in any manner.
9. A perusal of the bail pe on and the documents aBached primafacie points towards the pe oner's involvement and does not make out a case for bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the pe oner; this court refrains from doing so.
10. Any observa on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
11. Pe22on dismissed. All pending applica ons, if any, are disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
27.09.2024
Jyo -II
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
5
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2024 01:03:11 :::