Regular Bail

JUDGMENT :

N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J.

CRM-16807-2022

1. Prayer in the application is for placing on record Annexure P-4 and seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the same.

2. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Annexure P-4 is taken on record.

CRM-M-18443-2022

3. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant regular bail in case FIR No. 269 dated 26.08.2020 registered under Sections 380, 457, 302, 34 of IPC (Later on Sections 380/457 IPC deleted and Section 392 IPC added) at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad.

4. As per the case of the prosecution, on 26.08.2020, the information was received in the police Station regarding the murder of Jagdish Chander son of Chiranji Lal and on getting the said information, the police officials reached at the spot. Shiv Kumar son of Jagdish Chander, since deceased, was found present at the spot. As per him, at about 8/8.30 p.m. on 25.08.2020, his father Jagdish Chander slept in front of shop, after taking a meal and some unknown persons had committed murder of his father by assaulting him. As per the complainant, after killing his father, theft was committed from the drawer of the shop and the cameras were broken. At about 5.45 am, on 26.08.2020, Ravi, neighbour informed him about the incident and whole family reached at the spot.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the present FIR and was falsely involved due to some ulterior motive. As per the complainant, the alleged occurrence had taken place in the night intervening 25/26.08.2020 and there is no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence. However, on 27.08.2020, a supplementary statement of Shiv Kumar, complainant was recorded and the petitioner was named in the said supplementary statement. Learned counsel further contends that recovery of one CCTV Camera, currency notes of Rs. 700/- and Aadhar Card of deceased Jagdish Chander was planted on him during the course of investigation. However, the said recovery does not connect him with the commission of crime in any manner. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner is in custody since 27.08.2020 and out of 21 witnesses, no witness has been examined so far.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was specifically named in the supplementary statement of the complainant and he had played active role in the commission of crime. Apart from that, the CCTV camera and Aadhar Card of the deceased were recovered from him, which were sufficient to establish the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of crime and he does not deserve the concession of bail.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting bail, no doubt the seriousness of the charge is one of the relevant considerations, which should be taken into account, but this Court also has to take into consideration the circumstances, which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, custody of the under trial, chances of threatening the witnesses etc. In the present case, no doubt the allegations levelled by the present petitioner are very serious in nature, however, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 27.08.2020 and the petitioner is continuing in custody as an under trial for the last more than 03 years. Once an accused continues in under trial for such a long period, there is no doubt that his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are violated, which is the most basic right of all Fundamental Rights. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held a number of ju