Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 384
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arun Monga, J.
Balkishan @ Mangtu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-974-2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 03-10-2023
Mr. G.S. Gurna, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Karan Garg, AAG Haryana, for the Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the completion of investigation, slow pace of trial, and the petitioner's personal circumstances can be considered in granting bail, especially when there is no indication of a flight risk or necessity for further preventive custody.
Headnote:
BAIL - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 323, 325, 452, 506, 147, 148, 149 - The court allowed the bail petition of the petitioner who was an undertrial in a case involving multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code. The court considered the completion of investigation, slow pace of trial, and the petitioner's age and clean record in granting bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a second petition seeking release as an undertrial in a case involving charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's account detailed a violent incident resulting in the death of an individual, leading to the petitioner's arrest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, being in preventive custody for over 3 years, was not required for custodial interrogation and was unlikely to pose a flight risk. The court also noted that the co-accused had already been granted bail and that keeping the petitioner in further preventive custody would serve no useful purpose.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's request for bail, the seriousness of the offense, the risk of fleeing from trial proceedings, tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the completion of investigation, slow pace of trial, and the petitioner's age and clean record, which indicated a low flight risk and lack of necessity for further preventive custody.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail petition and ordered the petitioner's release on bail, emphasizing that the observations and submissions made during the bail hearing should not influence the merits of the case.
JUDGMENT
Arun Monga, J. - This is the second petition filed by the petitioner before this Court seeking his release as an undertrial in a case bearing FIR No. 0433, dated 28.09.2020, registered under Sections 302, 323, 325, 452, 506, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), at Police Station, Narnaund, District Hisar. The earlier petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed in CRM-M-1795-2022.
2. According to the prosecution's account, Ram Mehar (complainant) got his statement recorded to the effect that on September 27, 2020, at about 6:30 p.m., his son Lokesh, along with his friends Vicky, son of Krishan, and Raju, son of Rampal, went for a walk. When they reached near the office of the Fire Brigade in Narnaund, Parmod, son of Suresh, and Rahul, son of Balraj, met them and slapped and punched his son Lokesh without any reason. Friends of his son and passers-by intervened, and the matter was pacified. Thereafter, his son Lokesh came home, and his friends also left for their respective houses.Later, at about 7:30 p.m., Balraj, Chidya, Rahul, Nasib, Bal Kishan @ Mangat (petitioner), Bantu, Vishal, the wife of Bal Kishan, Purushotam, Suresh, Kamlesh, Dev Raj, Jindal, Rahul, Parmod, Kanhya, Aman, Rohit, Sombir, Ajay, along with 8-10 other individuals armed with lathis, dandas, gandasis, and knives, came to their house and started verbally abusing them. Parmod, Rahul, and Vishal dragged out his brother Ram Kumar onto the street, and all the accused attacked Ram Kumar. Upon hearing the commotion, Hari Chand, Karambir @ Karmu, Bala, Sachin @ Som Nath, and other family members came to the scene to rescue them. Rahul struck a blow to his nephew Karambir @ Karmu's head with a lathi, followed by Kanhya striking a gandasi blow to his uncle Hari Chand's head. Jindal and Suresh struck gandasi blows to his nephew Som Nath @ Sachin's head and shoulder. Chidya, Kamlesh, and the wife of Bal Kishan struck danda blows to his sister-in-law (Bhabi) on her leg and back. Vishal struck a knife blow to his brother Ram Kumar's left side of the abdomen, and Parmod struck a gandasi blow to his brother Ram Kumar's head. The petitioner then inflicted a gandasi blow to his brother Ram Kumar's head, and all the accused attacked other members of his family. When local residents arrived at the scene, all the assailants fled with their weapons, threatening to kill them if they got the chance in the future. All the injured individuals were taken to the hospital. Due to the precarious condition of his brother Ram Kumar, he was transferred to Civil Hospital, Hansi, where he was declared brought dead. FIR was registered. An investigation was carried out. During the investigation, accused Rohit, Ajay, and Sombir were found innocent. Further investigation led to the addition of Section 325 IPC upon receiving the X-ray report. On 01.10.2020, the petitioner and coaccused Jindal were arrested. Based on the disclosure statement, the petitioner's Danda, which was used during the incident, was recovered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to the post-mortem report, the deceased died due to abdominal injury, which contradicts the prosecution's claim that the petitioner struck a gandasi blow to the deceased's head, which was not the fatal injury as per the post-mortem report. The complainant also mentioned an earlier dispute between the two families, suggesting that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.
3.1. Furthermore, learned counsel contends that the petitioner's co-accused, namely Geeta and Dev Raj, have already been granted bail by this Court in separate orders dated 15.02.2021 and 12.07.2021, respectively. Additionally, there is nothing to be recovered from the petitioner, and he is not required for further custodial interrogation. The petitioner is not involved in any other case.
4. On the other hand, the l
