2023 Supreme(P&H) 2368
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
KARAMJIT SINGH, J.
Sawan Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-14568 of 2022(O&M)
Decided On : 01-03-2023
Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate; For the Petitioner
For the Respondent: Mr. Vishal Kashyap, AAG Haryana.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Application for regular bail in a murder case involving multiple accused - Petitioner claimed no specific injury attributed to him, with principal injury caused by co-accused - Long custody duration and minimal prosecution witnesses examined - Considerable time required for trial to conclude without victimization of petitioner. (Paras 2-6)
(B) Criminal Law - For bail considerations, the court analyzed the allegations and evidence, noting that the petitioner's alleged injuries were not decisive in the crime and that pre-trial detainment lacked purpose. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The petition involved a murder charge against the petitioner wherein he was alleged to be part of a mob that caused fatal injuries to a victim during a function. He has been in custody for over two years with minimal progress in the trial.
Findings of Court:
Given the lack of specific accusations against the petitioner and the extended duration of custody without a trial conclusion, the court favored granting bail.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner should remain in custody given the lack of specific injuries attributed to him and the delays in trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that maintaining custody without the clear prospect of trial or conviction serves no judicial purpose, especially when no decisive evidence links the petitioner directly to the fatal injuries.
Result: Petition allowed; the petitioner ordered to be released on bail.
JUDGMENT
Karamjit Singh, J.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case having FIR No. 467 dated 05.08.2020, registered under Sections 148 , 149, 201, 302, 323, 325 and 506 IPC at Police Station Assandh, District Karnal.
2. The allegations in nutshell are that on 05.08.2020 there was a function as per local rituals organized at Sato Peer Baba of village Khanda Kheri by co-accused Deepak. Complainant Mithun, his brother Ram Mehar (deceased) were also invited in the said function. From the side of co-accused Deepak, his friends Mohinder @ Babli, Pardeep @ Tona, Sawan Kumar (petitioner), Ajay Singh, Balinder and his relatives Naresh @ Choti, Rohit, Vicky and some other persons were also present there. At about 3/3:15 p.m. all of them were taking food, in the meanwhile co-accused Naresh @ Choti, Rohit, Vicky, Pardeep @ Tona, Sawan (petitioner), Mohinder, Ajay, Balinder and Deepak started abusing Ram Mehar. Co-accused Naresh @ Choti took out a binda from his car and gave its blow on the head of Ram Mehar. Co-accused Deepak also gave binda blow on the right arm of Ram Mehar who fell on the ground. Then Mohinder, Rohit, Vicky, Pardeep, Sawan (petitioner), Ajay, Mahinder and Balinder caused injuries to Ram Mehar with bindas and dandas. When the complainant and his friend Vicky tried to save Ram Mehar, Pardeep @ Tona gave binda blow on his left arm while Deepak gave binda blow on his left wrist. Other people who were present at the spot made efforts to rescue Ram Mehar and his brother from the clutches of the accused persons, on which the assailants fled away from there and lateron Ram Mehar died in Government Hospital, Assandh.
3. The counsel for the Petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 years and 01 month and during investigation only one danda was recovered at his instance. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that no specific injury is attributed to the petitioner and as per the allegations recorded in the FIR, it was co-accused Naresh @ Choti who gave binda blow on the head of the deceased. The counsel for the Petitioner further submits that as per post mortem report, except for one head injury, no other injury was found on the dead body of deceased Ram Mehar and that in the post-mortem report it has been specifically recorded that the cause of death is head injury which was ante mortem in nature. The counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the trial is not progressing ahead as 22 more witnesses remain to be examined on behalf of prosecution. The counsel for the Petitioner further submits that during trial prosecution has examined injured complainant Mithun and two other eye-witnesses. That the complainant while appearing in the witness box reiterated the allegations made in the FIR as per which no specific injury is attributed to the petitioner. That the complainant in his deposition clearly stated that co-accused Naresh @ Choti gave heavy danda blow in the head of his brother Ram Mehar. The counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the other two eye witnesses namely, Vicky and Surender failed to support the case of the prosecution. The copies of their testimonies are available on the record. The counsel for the Petitioner further submits that in the given circumstances it will take considerable time for the trial to conclude and no fruitful purpose is going to be served by keeping the petitioner in custody. So, prayer is made that the petitioner be released on bail.
4. The present petition is opposed by the State counsel who submits that all the accused including the petitioner are named in the FIR and at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was armed with danda with which he caused injuries to the deceased. The State counsel further submits that the petitioner was the member of the unlawful assembly which attacked Ram Mehar and complainant Mithun as a result of which Ram Mehar died. The State co