IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.
Mohit @ Situ - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M No. 63167 of 2023
Decided On : 16-11-2024
JUDGMENT :
(Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.)
This order shall dispose of the above-mentioned petitions filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of regular bail to the petitioners, as they arise out of same FIR i.e. FIR No.27 dated 23.05.2021 under Sections 120-B, 302, 201, 34 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station GRP Sonipat.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that a perusal of the FIR in question makes it abundantly clear that the instant case hinges solely on circumstantial evidence. It has been submitted that as per the allegations levelled in the FIR by the complainant (nephew of deceased Naresh), he received a telephonic call from PW-1 Krishan that his uncle Naresh (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) had been shot at by some person. Learned counsel submit that even as per the allegations levelled in the FIR in question, no attribution had been made to either of the petitioners of being present at the scene of the crime much less of having fired towards the deceased. Rather, PW-1 Krishan had not mentioned the name of any assailant while informing the complainant about the alleged crime. Learned counsel have submitted that a false and fabricated version having been brought forth finds further credence from the fact that PW-1 Krishan, who purportedly informed the complainant about the crime in question, while stepping into the witness box, had not supported the case of the prosecution as a result of which he was declared hostile. Learned counsel have also submitted that all the material witnesses except for complainant-Rahul had been examined before the trial Court and had not supported the case of the prosecution as a result of which they were all declared hostile. In support, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexures P-3 to P-6, which are the testimonies of all the material witnesses. Learned counsel have further submitted that petitioner-Sanjay has been in custody since 03.05.2021, whereas petitioner-Mohit has been in custody since 02.07.2021, however, the trial has not yet concluded because complainant-Rahul has been repeatedly absenting himself before the trial Court. It has been submitted that the complainant has since fled away to USA and gained entry through illegal means and hence, he cannot also be examined through video conferencing as his exact location in USA is unknown. Learned counsel have, therefore, prayed that since all the material witnesses stand examined and there is no specific attribution qua both the petitioners with respect to the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased, they be extended the concession o bail.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite has not been able to dispute the custody period of both the petitioners; she has also not been able to dispute the stage of trial. On instructions, learned State counsel has conceded that all the material witnesses in the present case stand examined and have been declared hostile during trial. However, learned State counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the allegations levelled in the FIR, which has been annexed as Annexure P-1 and stands reproduced hereinunder:-
The court granted bail due to lack of direct evidence against the petitioners and prolonged custody without trial, emphasizing the importance of fair trial rights.
Bail applications require a balance of crime severity, punishment nature, and prima facie involvement; refusal is justified when allegations are grave.
The likelihood of witness tampering and the criminal background of the accused are valid reasons for denying regular bail.
Murder offence - Rejection of Bail - stage of framing of charges - Grievous injuries were found on the person of the deceased which proved fatal - petitioner may threaten or influence the witnesses, ....
The court's decision was based on the lack of incriminating evidence exclusively within the knowledge of the accused-petitioners and the lack of support from the star prosecution witness.
The changed stand of a key witness, lack of progress in prosecution evidence, and prolonged custody can be considered in granting regular bail.
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.