The need for judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail in serious offence cases, considering the nature of accusation, severity of punishment, supporting evidence, and other relevant circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)

CRL.M.A. 10610/2023 in BAIL APPLN. 815/2022

1. The present application has been moved seeking an early hearing.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed.

BAIL APPLN. 815/2022

3. The present application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail in FIR bearing No. 228/2020 registered at Police Station Narela for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the only evidence which is available against the applicant is the disclosure statement made by the applicant/accused and his refusal to take part in TIP proceedings. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is in custody since 09.07.2021. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed, however, the charges have yet not been framed and the trial may take a long time.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the present FIR was lodged on the statement of Durga Singh wherein he has alleged that on the intervening night of 12/15.06.2020, two guards namely Amit Kumar and Sunil were beaten up mercilessly with wooden sticks and iron bars by some unknown persons. The complainant Durga Singh alleged that when he tried to intervene and save the guards, the alleged accused persons attacked him also, therefore to save his life, he ran away from there. The complainant further stated that he can identify the assailants. Initially, the case was registered under Section 307/34 of IPC. However, later on, both persons succumbed to injuries, and Section 307 was converted into Section 302 of IPC.

6. Learned APP submits that it was a blind murder. However, on 07.07.2021, information was received at PS Narela from Haryana Police, CIA-2/Panipat regarding two accused persons namely Vikas (i.e. the present applicant) and Ankit got arrested in case FIR No. 276/21, under Section 398/401 IPC & 25(1)(b) of Arms Act, PS Sector 29, Panipat Haryana. During the interrogation, the accused persons made a disclosure statement that they also carried out another incident in Narela about 1 year ago along with their other accomplices namely Rahul, Monu, and others.

7. Learned APP for the State submits that during the course of the investigation, the present applicant and Ankit were formally arrested in the Panipat Jail on 09.07.2021. Learned APP for the State submits that the applicant refused to take part in the TIP proceedings. However, the applicant was identified by the eyewitness through the dossier photographs.

8. Learned APP has also submitted that the plea taken by the applicant that his photo had already been published in Dainik Jagran was also found to be false and in this regard, an updated status report was filed on 11.09.2022 wherein it was found that no such photographs was published. Learned APP also submits that the petitioner is also involved in another FIR No. 276/2021 under Sections 398/401 IPC and Section 25(1)(b) Arms Act.

9. The jurisprudence regarding the grant of bail is very well settled. The principles regarding the grant of bail in serious offence cases have been dealt with in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr., (2004 (7) SCC 528) in para 11 wherein it was inter-alia held as under:

"11. 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 having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-appli