Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
PANKAJ JAIN, J.
Bijender @ Bali - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M No. 16707 of 2024
Decided On : 10-05-2024
Bail - Regular Bail - Section 439 Cr.P.C. - The court interpreted the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding the grant of bail, emphasizing the importance of the nature of allegations and the evidence available, ultimately allowing bail due to insufficient corroboration of the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for charges related to murder and conspiracy, following an FIR alleging involvement in the death of the petitioner's husband, with no eyewitness accounts and questionable evidence linking the petitioner to the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the lack of corroborative evidence against the petitioner, particularly regarding the nature of injuries on the deceased, which did not align with the allegations made against the petitioner, leading to the conclusion that the bail should be granted.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the nature of the allegations and the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of corroborative evidence and the nature of the allegations warranted the granting of bail, emphasizing that pre-trial detention should not be punitive in nature.
Result: Bail granted to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
(Pankaj Jain, J.) :
Present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.699 dated 02.11.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 120-B, 148, 201, 302 and 404 read with Section 149 of IPC, 1860 at Police Station Bhiwani Sadar, District Bhiwani.
2. Status report by way of affidavit of Ramesh Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (H.Q), Bhiwani and custody certificate have been filed on behalf of the respondent-State. The same are taken on record.
3. As per the allegations levelled in the FIR on the statement made by Pinky wife of Surinder, it was alleged as under:-
“I do agricultural work. On 31 October 2022 at about 4 PM in the evening, my husband Surinder went to fields for some work at that time. My husband had quarrel with Rajesh son of Saaj, Ram, Ajay, son of Saaj, Ram, and Vijender son of Dalip resident of Bala and they were having grudge against my husband. Yesterday, on first of November 2022, my husband went to fields on cycle and about 11 PM. I came to know from my brother-in-law and my mother-in-law that my husband is dead. Body is lying on the fields and thereafter we reached over there along with my mother-in-law and brother-in-law, where attar son of, was found lying in dead condition, and he was having injuries on his hands, legs, on his stomach, and I enquired at my own level and is assured myself that my husband Surinder has been murdered because of his old enmity and Manish son of Ranveer, Vijay Inder, son of Dilip, Rajesh son of Sajja, Ram, Pradeep, son of Rajbir, Surinder, son of Balbir, Ranveer, son of Balbir, Renu wife of Vijay Inder, Sandeep son of Kartar they all after hatching conspiracy had murdered my husband and Shri Bhagwan, son of Kapoor, Naresh, son of Mahavir, Bhupinder, son of Mahabir, Prem son of Mahabir, Bilu Alias Vinod has informed with regard to my husband to them and they have told that now my husband has left from home it is humble request to you that kindly take strict legal action against all of them I and my family members may kindly be protected and kindly take legal action against them. xxx”
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eye witness account. Petitioner has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statements and the role attributed as per the investigation report filed before the trial Court qua the petitioner is that he gave stick blow on the waist of the deceased. He submits that the role assigned to the petitioner when seen in the light of the post mortem report would show that in fact there is no injury on the waist of the deceased. The injuries found on the person of the deceased have been tabulated as under:-
| Sr. No. | Injuries | Marked | Injury Number |
| 1. | 10 Tram Track contusions of size ranges maximum 15CM into 3CM, 10CM into 3CM, 6 CM Into 3CM min of Bluish in color over posterolateral aspect of left thigh, on dissection underlying tissue ecchymosed, muscles soft. | No | 1 |
| 2. | A lacerated would of 4 into 2 CM on Anterior aspect of LT Leg Fresh bleed present on dissection underlying tissue ecchymosed muscle soft. | No | 2 |
| 3. | 8 Tram Track contusions of size maximum 8CM into 3CM 6 CM into 3 CM minimum 3 CM into 2CM of Bluish in colour on posterolateral aspect of RT Thigh on diffction underlying tissue ecchymosed muscle soft. | No | 3 |
| 4. | A lacerated wound of 5 into 1 CM reddish in colour on Rt Knee joint on dissection underlying bones intact | No | 4 |
| 5. | Contusion of red in colour on RT wrist joint of 5 into 5cm and lacerated wound of 3 into 0.5 cm over dorsal aspect of RT hand on dissection echymosed underlying tissue echymosed. | No | 5 |
| 6. | 2 contusion of bluish in color of size 6cm into 3cm on dorsal aspect of LT Arm on dissection underlying tissue echhymosed muscle soft. | No | 6 |
| 7 | Lacerated wound of reddish in colour over Lt. |
AI
The court established that insufficient evidence and the nature of allegations can justify the granting of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The court considered the lack of progress in the trial, the nature of the injuries, and the unlikelihood of the trial concluding in the near future as factors in granting regular bail to the petition....
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
