Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 919
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
Vinod - Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M No.7301 of 2018
Decided On : 16-03-2018
For the Petitioner:Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Vikas Malik, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
The court may grant bail based on the lack of support from key prosecution witnesses and the prolonged custody of the petitioner without useful purpose.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Summary: The court granted bail to the petitioner based on the lack of support from key prosecution witnesses, the grant of bail to the co-accused, and the petitioner's prolonged custody without useful purpose.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed for regular bail in a case involving charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. The main allegations were against the co-accused, who had already been granted bail. The petitioner had been in custody since 25.10.2016, and key prosecution witnesses did not support the case against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the key prosecution witnesses did not support the case against the petitioner, and considering the prolonged custody without useful purpose, granted bail to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved the lack of support from key prosecution witnesses, the grant of bail to the co-accused, and the petitioner's prolonged custody without useful purpose.
Ratio Decidendi: The lack of support from key prosecution witnesses and the grant of bail to the co-accused influenced the court's decision to grant bail to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court accepted the petition and ordered the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.939 dated 11.10.2016, registered under Sections 148, 149, 302, 341 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Karnal.
2. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the co-accused, namely, Vikas, against whom main allegations are there in the present case, has already been granted the concession of bail by this Court, vide order dated 08.03.2018. It is further contended that the petitioner is in custody since 25.10.2016 and both prosecution witnesses i.e. PW 6 Pawan Kumar, who happens to be the real brother of the deceased as well as eyewitness and PW 7 Sohan Lal, who is also stated to be the eye-witness, have not supported the prosecution case.
3. The above factual position is not disputed by learned State Counsel, on instructions from S.I. Kulwant Singh.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Paper-book reveals that the testimony of PW-6 Pawan Kumar, who is the real brother of the deceased and who happened to be the complainant as well as eye-witness has specifically deposed that the present petitioner-Vinod had never caused any injury to his brother-since deceased. Similarly PW-7 Sohan Lal again stated to be an eye witness, has also deposed that the petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased-Sawan.
5. The relevant part of the testimony of PW 6 and PW 7 reads as under:-
“PW 6 Pawan Kumar:
Accused Vinod and Vikas, present in the court today, never caused any injuries to my brother Sawan and I never made any statement against them to the police.”
“PW 7 Sohan Lal:
Stated that I do not know anything about the present case. I never made any statement to the police against accused Vinod and Vikas who are present in the court today and they never inflicted any injuries to Sawan in my presence.”
6. In view of the fact that both the material prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and moreover there are total 17 PWs and out of them, 08 PWs have been examined, as well as the fact that the co-accused, against whom the main allegations are there, has already been granted the concession of bail by this Court and the petitioner is in custody since 25.10.2016. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars and thus, it would be just and appropriate if the concession of bail is granted to the petitioner. Therefore, this petition is accepted and petitioner-Vinod is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
