IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
Deepak – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-31216 of 2023
Decided On : 06-07-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the bail petition. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments for and against bail. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's considerations for granting bail. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. conditions upon granting bail. (Para 6) |
| 5. judicial safeguards post bail grant. (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Aman Chaudhary, J.
The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 269 dated 29.04.2022, registered under Section 304 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat.
2. Learned counsel contends that petitioner has been in custody for the last 1 year 2 months. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident had taken place when the deceased who was an alcoholic and his wife were fighting in the middle of the night and he fell off the roof, in which the petitioner though their neighbor, had no role to play. The petitioner is a poor person, working as a labourer and is living in the house of his married sister, as his parents had expired. He has no criminal antecedents. Charges have been framed on 19.09.2022, however, none of 15 Pws have been examined. Learned counsel has produced copy of Zimni orders passed by the trial Court wherein it is depicted in order dated 06.03.2023 that PW- Renu who is the complainant as also PWs Sahil and Neeraj were present and filed an application that they are unable to give evidence being not well, as such the case was adjourned to 27.04.2023 on which date, no PW came present.
3. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are allegations against the petitioner of having pushed the deceased from the roof during the scuffle that had taken place when the deceased and his wife were arguing in the middle of the night. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to the custody, stage of the case, the petitioner being not involved in any other case.
4. Heard.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner has been in custody since last 1 year 2 months; he is not involved in any other case; charges have been framed but out of 15 Pws, none have been examined; the trial is likely to take considerable time, thus, his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose, thus the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed.
6. As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to his not being required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:-
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the length of custody, examination of witnesses, bail granted to co-accused, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial are relevant factors in dec....
The court's decision to grant bail was based on the lack of evidence establishing the accused's intention to commit murder under Sec. 302 of IPC and the completion of the investigation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.