##PAGE1##

CNR No: PHHC010640212026 NEERAJ V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER Present: Mr. Chetan Juneja, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aditi Girdhar, Asst. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advoate for respondent No.2.

-.-

i) Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 800 dated 10.08.2018, under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act and Sections 302 and 34 of IPC (Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS) registered at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat, District Panipat.

ii) Taking note of the contentions raised and the period of incarceration undergone by co-accused Ravi, while granting him bail, t Coordinate Bench of this Court recorded the following in its order dated

28.08.2023:

“1. xxx

2. Prosecution case is that complainant Ankur Gupta, having family business of dye of fabrics/textiles, when on 10.08.2018was giving monthly salaries to workers along with his father Parmod Gupta and brother Yaman Gupta, two young boys in muffled faces reached their factory premises. They demanded money from his father. When his father questioned them, they fired gunshots at his father with the pistols they were carrying. His father fell down on the ground. On hearing the gunshots, several workers of the factory reached there and apprehended the said boys along with their weapons. In the scuffle, some workers also received injuries. He took his father to Government Hospital, Panipat where he was declared brought dead. FIR was lodged. Petitioner is in custody since 10.08.2018.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no motive attributed to petitioner to commit the alleged offence. The alleged gunshot is attributed to co-accused Neeraj. No specific role is attributed to the petitioner. He further submits that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and he is not required for further custodial interrogation. There is no likelihood of petitioner tampering with evidence and/ or influencing prosecution witnesses.Petitioner is totally innocent and has thus been falsely implicated in the case.There is no other case pending against him. He further submits that petitioner is having serious medical issue with regard to working of his kidneys and if not treated urgently, he may not survive.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail petition. He submits that petitioner has committed a serious offence. Accused were apprehended at the spot along with the weapons they were carrying with which they had committed the murder of the father of the complainant. There is direct evidence against them and there are several eyewitnesses to prove the same.In case, petitioner is granted concession of bail, there are chances of his fleeing from justice.He, however, admits that no other case is pending against him.

5. I have heard rival contentions of learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the case file.

6. On a Court query, under instructions from SI Shri Krishan, learned State counsel submits that after challan was presented and charges were framed, trial is going on.Investigation is thuscomplete.Petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation.Out of 21 prosecution witnesses,14 havebeen examined.Allegations against petitioner are a matter of trial at this stage.Conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite sometime as it is proceeding at a snail pace.

7. Bail allows an accused to maintain his freedom until his guilt or innocence is determined. Whereas, petitioner has already been languishing in jail more than 05 years, being behind bars since 10.08.2018. He is being kept in preventive custody merely on anunfounded suspicion that if he is let out, he may either tamper with evidence and/ orinfluence witnesses.

8. Vide order dated 25.05.2023 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, petitioner was granted interim bail.

Order being relevant is reproduced hereinbelow:

“The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner inter alia contends that the only alle