IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

218 (02 cases) CRM-M-1837-2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 13.01.2025 MAHESH KUMAR …. PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA …. RESPONDENT

2. CRM-M-9816-2024 (O&M)

SANDEEP KUMAR ALIAS SUNNY …. PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA …. RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Ramnish Puri, Advocate and Ms. Monika Tanwar, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. By this common order, the above said petitions are disposed of as issues involved and prayer sought are common. For the sake of convenience and with the consent of parties, the facts are borrowed from CRM-M-1837-2024.

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.0062 dated 07.03.2023 under Sections 304, 323, 342, 364-A and 386 of IPC and registered at Police Station Rewari City, District Rewari.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the present FIR has been registered on the written complaint moved by Janki Devi wife of Arjun Singh, resident of Village Narhar, P.S. Pilani, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, who in her complaint, has averred that she is 70 years old. It has been alleged that on 27.08.2022 at about 10.00 AM, her son Ishwar Singh had gone to Pilani in connection with some urgent work and thereafter, he was missing. Yesterday, at about 05.00 PM, her son-in-law (Damaad) namely Karan Singh had received a phone call from Mahesh Kumar, who asserted to transfer Rs. 15 lacs and then only, they will leave Ishwar alive, otherwise, they will kill him. Thereafter, the said persons made to talk Karan Singh with Ishwar for many times. Ishwar asserted that the kidnappers were demanding Rs. 15 lacs from him and also requested to give the said amount to them, otherwise, they will kill him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) inter alia contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR (supra) without there being, any incriminating material against them. The facts have been manipulated with regard to the natural death of Suresh Kumar who has never assaulted and confined by the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) further submits that definite cause of “death” could not be ascertained, however, it is opined that the cause of death is the result of Isheroic Cardiac Events. It is further detected during the postmortem examination that the deceased has consumed alcohol prior to his death and also suffered injuries. As such, there is no material available on record to indicate that the deceased has suffered homicidal death. Further, the material witnesses PW1 to PW3 including the complainant and victim have not supported the case of prosecution. They have been declared hostile by learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioner-Mahesh Kumar is behind the bars since 27.09.2023 and the petitioner-Sandeep Kumar @ Sunny is behind the bars since 03.11.2023. They are not involved in any other case.

6. Custody certificates filed by learned State counsel are taken on record.

7. Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioners and it would be decided by learned trial Court whether the petitioners can be held liable for an offence under Section 304 IPC. However, she could not controvert the fact that they are not involved in any other case.

8. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI’ (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed: “6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for