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

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2587

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

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Mandeep Singh Kundu, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Dhruv Sihag, AAG, Haryana.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304 - Grant of regular bail - Petitioner, having faced incarceration for 1 year 2 months, contended that he was falsely implicated in the incident, arguing he had no involvement in the misfortune of the deceased, who fell due to a domestic dispute - The State could not refute the claim of undue delay in trial as none of the prosecution witnesses had been examined - Considering the length of custody and lack of other cases against the petitioner, bail was granted on conditions to ensure the integrity of the trial. (Paras 1, 5, 6, 7)

Findings of Court:
The petitioner is to be released on bail, with the stipulation of not tampering with evidence and appearing for trial.

Issues: The primary issue considered was whether the long pre-trial detention and the status of witness testimonies justified the granting of bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of trial efficiency and the adverse impact of prolonged custody on the accused without substantial evidence.

Result: Petition allowed, with specific bail conditions.

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:-

    1. The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

    2. The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

    3. The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

    4. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

    5. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

    6. The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

    7. The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.

    8. The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

    9. The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the

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