SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1095

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Manoj Bajaj, J.
Rajesh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M-20818-2021 (O&M) and CRM-M-12332-2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 15-02-2022

Advocates:
Mr. S.P. Arora, Advocate And; Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate; For the Appellant In Crm-M-20818-2021; Dr. Deipa Singh, Advocate; For the Appellant In Crm-M-12332-2021; Mr. Bhupender Singh, Dag, Haryana; Mr. Lajpat Rai Sharma, Advocate; For Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate; For The Complainant.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of material witnesses, lack of possibility of witness tampering, and the lengthy trial process as grounds for granting bail in a case involving serious allegations.

Headnote:

Regular Bail - Criminal Conspiracy - Section 302, 120-B, 34 IPC - [Section 302, Section 120-B, Section 34 IPC] - The court allowed the petitioners' request for regular bail pending trial in a case involving allegations of murder and criminal conspiracy. The court considered the examination of material witnesses, lack of possibility of witness tampering, and the lengthy trial process as grounds for granting bail.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed petitions for regular bail pending trial in a case involving allegations of murder and criminal conspiracy. The complainant alleged that the deceased, his mother, was murdered by two unknown accused persons and suspected the involvement of his brother (one of the petitioners) in the crime.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that material witnesses had been examined, and there was no apparent possibility of witness tampering. It noted that the conclusion of the trial would take considerable time and further detention of the petitioners would not be necessary for a useful purpose.

Issues: The issues involved allegations of murder, criminal conspiracy, and the credibility of prosecution witnesses, particularly the complainant and witness Nirmal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to grant bail was based on the examination of material witnesses, lack of possibility of witness tampering, and the lengthy trial process.

Final Decision: The court ordered the petitioners to be released on regular bail in the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Bajaj, J.(Oral) - CRM-5294-2022

Statement of PW Krishna dated 26.10.2020, is taken on record.

CRM is allowed.

MAIN CASE

1. Petitioners have filed their respective petitions under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail pending trial in case FIR No.0306 dated 15.6.2020, under Section 302, 120-B, 34 IPC, Police Station Urban Estate Hisar, District Hisar, who are in custody since their arrest in June, 2020.

2. The allegations contained in the FIR as noticed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Heinous Crime against Women, in the order dated 24.12.2020, are as under:-

    'The present case has been registered on the statement of complainant Ramesh Kumar son of Inder Singh and in brief he alleged that his mother Satbiri Devi (deceased) was living with him in a rental accommodation and his brother Rajesh (present petitioner-accused) lived separate from him and his mother in house No.491, Urban Estate, Hisar. The complainant's mother is having 2 acres of land in village Tokaspatan, one house bearing no. 491 in Urban Estate, Hisar and one plot in Sector 27- 28, Hisar. There was a dispute since 2018 regarding property in between the deceased and the present petitioner. On 14.06.2020, in the evening at 07:30 pm, complainant went to Sector 1-4 due to some work, he received telephonic call from his wife at about 09:00 pm that his mother (deceased) was walking with one Krishna in Urban Estate and two boys attacked her with knife blow. Complainant reached at his house and his wife told him that the deceased was shifted to Jindal Hospital.

    3. Krishna also told the complainant that when she and deceased Satbiri were walking in a street of Urban Estate at about 08:30 pm, suddenly, near Tarun Coaching Centre, two boys came on motorcycle and attacked on Satbiri with bluet fire and also one boy attack with knife, due to which deceased fell down. On 14.06.2020 at about 10:00 pm, Satbiri died during treatment in the Jindal Hospital. Complainant alleged that her mother has been killed by two unknown persons and he has doubt that his mother has been killed at the instance of his brother Rajesh (present petitioner). He also alleged that some other persons may also be involved.'

    4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that as per the complainant, his mother was murdered by two unknown accused persons, and later on four accused persons namely, Rajesh, Rahul, Sunny and Anil were implicated as the complainant had suspected involvement of his brother (Rajesh) in the crime. According to learned counsel, the gun-shot and knife injuries were given to the victim by accused Sunny and Anil, whereas and the petitioners have been implicated on the strength of criminal conspiracy. They have argued that the complainant is the real brother of Rajesh (petitioner) and they both are having old dispute between them, who are having multiple litigations against each other. It is further pointed out that the only eye witnesses, namely, Krishna (PW-1) and Nirmal (PW-2) have already been examined by the prosecution and PW1-Krishna who was accompanying the victim when the alleged occurrence took place has not identified the assailants Sunny and Anil in her deposition. They have prayed for regular bail.

    .5. The prayer is opposed by learned State counsel assisted by SI Sahab Ram alongwith learned counsel for the complainant, who have argued that eye witness Krishna had not given the names of the assailants in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as at that time, there was no proper lighting, however, witness Nirmal has identified two assailants in her deposition before the trial Court who was 10 paces behind Krishna.

    6. According to learned State counsel, Rajesh had given the contract of this murder to his employee Rahul, who further entrusted the job to his brother co-accused Sunny, who finally executed the crime alongwith co-accused Anil. He states that the weapons of offence, i.e. pistol and knife were recovered from Sunny and Anil and as per

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top