207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-38678-2024(O&M) Date of Decision: 07.01.2025 Dharambir ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Vishal Kashyap, DAG, Haryana.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 216 dated 01.09.2022, under Sections 302, 120-B, 109, 201 IPC and Section 25(1B) (a) of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Gurugram.

2. Mr. Vinod Ghai, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Arnav Ghai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 17.04.2024 which is more than 8 months. He submitted that it is a case where the FIR was registered by the complainant by alleging that a call was received by one Rajinder that the father of the complainant was shot dead by some persons and an FIR was registered on 01.09.2022 and on the same date the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C was also recorded which is Annexure P-4 wherein the names of various co- accused have been mentioned but the name of the petitioner was neither mentioned in the FIR nor in the aforesaid statement. He submitted that after about 22 days on the basis of the statement made by one of the co- accused namely, Chaman against whom the basic motive was attributed, the name of the petitioner was nominated on 23.09.2022 but the police also did not make any effort to take any action against the petitioner nor the same is reflected in the affidavit filed by the respondent-State in the present case. He submitted that it was after 1½ years i.e. on 17.04.2024, the petitioner was arrested and although the petitioner is involved in seven more cases in which he is already on bail but that cannot become a ground for denial of bail to the petitioner in the present case. He also referred to para No.21 in the latter part of affidavit wherein it has been so stated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Task Force, Gurugram that the petitioner has not been found to be declared proclaimed offender in any of the other cases in which he is involved. He submitted that since the petitioner was arrested later on, the trial pertaining to the petitioner is commencing independently and till date no prosecution witness has been examined. He also submitted that rather it is a case of the prosecution themselves which is so reflected in the status report filed by the respondent that the only allegation against the petitioner is pertaining to conspiracy and even as per the State, neither the petitioner was involved in the offence of murder nor he was present at the spot. He also submitted that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner at all and he has been falsely implicated in the present case only because of the reason that he was earlier involved in number of cases. He also submitted that it is a settled law that the disclosure statement of a co-accused is not admissible in evidence especially in the present case when no other action has been attributed to the petitioner except for conspiracy and no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and therefore, he may be considered for the grant of regular bail.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Vishal Kashyap, learned DAG, Haryana has submitted that so far as the custody of the petitioner is concerned, the same is correct and it is also correct that till date no prosecution witness has been examined. While referring to the affidavit filed by the respondent- State, he also submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner was pertaining to conspiracy and the petitioner was nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused namely, Chaman.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also brought