PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.
Shishan – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-57211-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 22-11-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case present a bail application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the petitioner's condition and alleged role. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's considerations on bail and trial speed. (Para 4) |
| 4. court's decision to grant bail. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Moudgil, J. (Oral)
CRM-45451-2024
Application is allowed, as prayed for.
Annexures P-1 to P-6 are taken on record with just exceptions.
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 has been invoked for the 2nd time seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 89, dated 13.05.2024, under Sections 216, 307, 387, 506, 34 and 120-B of IPC, 1860 and Section 25 of Arms Act (Sections 216 of IPC and 25 of Arms Act added later on) registered at Police Station City Safidon, District Jind.
2. Facts
Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-
"TO, The SHO, Police station, City Safidon. Subject: - Complaint against unknown people for demanding Extortion and on refusal of paying extortion, they fired upon my Partner namely Deepak, with intention to Kill at our shop. 1. That We have Mobile shop namely " 7VK Communication" at Stadium market and my Shop No are 17 & 18 and in this shop I, Ankur Gupta Son of Ashok Gupta resident of Safidon presently residing in, Model Town, Virat Nagar Panipat, and I am partner with Deepak son of Rajender Prasad of Sadfion. 2. That I have received Whatsapp call Mobile Number 447309801064 on 30.3.2024 for extortion, on my Mobile No 9896244211, and I have taken this call lightly and no action was taken by me. But on next day i.e. 1.4.2024, I received the WhatsApp call from same mobile number and I blocked that number. That again on 3.4.2024, third time, I have received call from Mobile no. 37256187485, and again they demanded the extortion and they threatened me to face the dire and also threatened to kill us and even again we had this call. 3. That today i.e. 13.5.2024 around 5.35 PM, Deepak was standing outside and I was working inside the shop and then, I saw three unknown people coming on motorcycle with muffled faces and those people fired towards the Shop and Deepak escaped from the firing. Then firing, those unknown persons escaped towards new Bus Stand while waving their pistols in air. I have full Doubt that this attack was done by same persons who used to give threat from above mentioned Mobile numbers for Extortion on my mobile phone. That immediately after the incident I have informed the Police and police also came on the spot. Thus, it is humbly prayed before you Sir, that strict legal may kindly be taken against the unknown people and protect our life and property Sd/- Applicant Ankur Gupta son of Ashok Gupta, resident of Safidon presently residing in Model Town Virat Nagar, Panipat."
3. Contentions:
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by co-accused. He further submits that the petitioner is suffering from various ailments and required medical attention. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that other co-accused persons have already been granted the concession of bail by the Court below.
On behalf of the State
Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. He prays for dismissal of the present petition on the ground that the petitioner has played an active role in connivance with his son as calls which were being made for extortion from abroad relates to the mobile number of the son of the petitioner.
At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the petitioner has not played any active role in the commissioning of the offence, which derails the whole story of the prosecution itself at this stage.
4. Analysis
Considering the custody period already suffered by the petitioner i.e., 6 months and 6 days and not involved in any other case, as is evident from the perusal of the custody cer
Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna
The right to a speedy trial is essential; bail should not be denied as punishment.
Bail should be granted unless compelling reasons exist, balancing the accused's liberty with victim protection, especially when the accused is a first-time offender.
The presumption of innocence is fundamental, and bail is the general rule, particularly when the accused has not been directly implicated and has suffered significant pre-trial detention.
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.