Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sudip Ahluwalia, J.
Vikrant @ Mukesh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 44084 of 2020
Decided On : 08-01-2021
Regular Bail - Criminal Procedure - The court granted regular bail to the petitioner based on the limited evidence against him and the lack of indication of his conscious association with the actual conspiracy to murder the victim.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking regular bail in a case involving charges under various sections of the IPC and the Arms Act. The only material available against the petitioner was the disclosure statement of a co-accused implicating him in the purchase of firearms, with no indication of his direct involvement in the conspiracy to murder the victim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence against the petitioner was limited to the disclosure statement of a co-accused and did not indicate his conscious association with the actual conspiracy to murder the victim. Considering the extent of his role and the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the court granted the petitioner's prayer for regular bail.
Issues: Limited evidence against the petitioner, lack of indication of conscious association with the conspiracy, and the impact of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic on the trial process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the limited evidence against the petitioner and the absence of any indication of his conscious involvement in the conspiracy to murder the victim, as well as the potential delay in the trial due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner's prayer for regular bail and ordered his release on bail, subject to appropriate terms and conditions.
JUDGMENT
Sudip Ahluwalia, J. - This is the second petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner, seeking regular bail in case FIR No.66 dated 02.03.2020, under Sections 302/34/120-B/411/201/115 of the IPC and Sections 24/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar.
2. Admittedly, the only material available against the petitioner is the disclosure statement of co-accused Sandeep @ Shandy to the effect that he had bought one 315 bore pistol, 04 cartridges of that pistol, another pistol of . 32 bore with 20 cartridges, for an amount of `30,000/- from the petitioner. There is otherwise no material, whatsoever, to indicate that at any stage, the petitioner was a part of the actual conspiracy to kill the victim Dharampal Sanga.
3. Co-Accused Mahender @ Sonu @ Lali was granted regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-22175-2020, on 18.08.2020, after observing that involvement of the said co-accused was similarly limited to the extent that the offending weapon was handed over to him by the main accused after actual crime had already taken place.
4. In this view of the matter, there is little justification to detain the petitioner indefinitely in the present case, considering the extent of his role transpiring only from the disclosure statement of a co-accused, and which does not indicate his conscious association with the actual conspiracy to murder the victim.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, without commenting any further on the merits of the present case as a whole and in view of the detention undergone by the petitioner, as also the fact that the trial is likely to take its own substantial time, particularly on account of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the prayer of the petitioner for regular bail is allowed and he is ordered to be released on bail, subject to appropriate terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
6. Disposed off.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
