Deepak vs State Of Haryana on 21 February, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Deepak vs State Of Haryana on 21 February, 2024

Author: Pankaj Jain

Bench: Pankaj Jain

                                                      Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024276




CRM-M-3345-2024                                                                 1

                                                        2024:PHHC:024276

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH

236                                       CRM-M-3345-2024
                                          Date of decision : 21.02.2024

Deepak                                                        ...... Petitioner
                                versus

State of Haryana                                            ...... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present:    Ms. Aarti Sharma, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Ashok Kumar Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.

                    ****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.286

dated 22.07.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections

302, 34 and 201 of IPC, 1860 at Police Station Matlauda, District

Panipat.

2. Status report by way of affidavit of Dharamvir Singh, HPS,

Dy. Superintendent of Police, Head Quarters, Panipat has been filed on

behalf of the respondent-State. The same is taken on record.

3. On 22.07.2022, FIR came into being on the information

supplied by Jyoti wife of deceased Kuldeep claiming that her husband

Kuldeep left the village on 21.07.2022 for his duty to Panipat and did

not return back.

4. As per prosecution during the investigation, they suspected

illicit relationship between one Sawan s/o Naresh and Jyoti-the

complainant. On the basis of disclosure statement made by Sawan, the

1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 22-02-2024 08:49:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024276

CRM-M-3345-2024 2

2024:PHHC:024276

present petitioner was nominated. CCTV footage of Shaifali Chicken

Corner for the period from 19:28 p.m. to 19:48 p.m. on 20.07.2022 was

collected and as per the same, co-accused Sawan, deceased Kuldeep

alongwith the petitioner can be seen buying chicken at 19:30 p.m. and

returning back at 19:36 p.m. The role of the petitioner as per the status

report reads as under:-

“That the role of the petitioner in crime is that
the petitioner had friendship with accused Sawan
who apprised that he has illicit relations co-accused
Jyoti W/o deceased Kuldeep for about 7/8 months.
Kuldeep came to know about a month ago about the
illicit relations between co-accused Sawan and
Jyoti. After this Kuldeep started harassing co-
accused Jyoti more. Co-accused Jyoti wants to kill
her husband Kuldeep and she asked the petitioner to
help her in killing Kuldeep, so being a friend, the
petitioner consented co-accused Sawan to help her
in killing Kuldeep. After this, on 03/07/2022, the
petitioner went to village Ahar and along with co-
accused Sawan and Jyoti, made a plan to kill
Kuldeep at co-accused Jyoti’s house. As per the
plan, on 20/07/2022, co-accused Sawan called the
petitioner’s mobile No.9817001976 from his mobile
No.7082877589 and called to village Ahar to
murder Kuldeep. The petitioner had gone to village
Ahar with two sacks from the factory. In evening
around 06:30/07:00 PM, they both found Kuldeep
coming on a bike near Pond in village Ahar who
was already drunk. Both of them together asked
Kuldeep to drink alcohol, so Kuldeep came with
them on his bike to consume alcohol. Kuldeep was
driving the bike. Firstly they left Sawan at Shefall

2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 22-02-2024 08:50:00 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024276

CRM-M-3345-2024 3

2024:PHHC:024276

Chicken Corner to get chicken. The petitioner and
Kuldeep went to liquor store to buy liquor. From
the liquor store, the petitioner and Kuldeep took a
bottle of English brand McDowells. When they
reached Shalfall Chicken Corner with a bottle of
liquor, Sawan signaled them and sent them ahead of
the shop and after sometime Sawan came to them
with chicken. All three of them went to a vacant
plot of village Chhichrana near the water tank on
Madlauda Road to consume alcohol and all of them
sat there and started consuming alcohol. The
petitioner and co-accused Sawan made Kuldeep
drink more alcohol as per plan and after Kuldeep
became Intoxicated, co-accused Sawan caught hold
of both hands of Kuldeep. The petitioner punched
Kuldeep on his face and strangled him. The co-
accused Sawan picked up a brick by chance and
killed Kuldeep by hitting him on the head. After
killing Kuldeep, the petitioner and co-accused
Sawan together put Kuldeep’s body in a plastic bag,
put it on Kuldeep’s black colored bike brand HF
Deluxe No.HR-06AY-0446 and came to village
Ahar and shown Kuldeep’s body to Jyoti. After that
Kuldeep’s body was thrown into the old dirty water
tank of village Ahar by them. After killing Kuldeep,
the petitioner broke his mobile phone and SIM card
and threw it away. His disclosure statement is
annexed with Status Report as Annexure R-4 for
the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.”

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that whole of the story

projected by the prosecution looks highly improbable as no prudent

man can be expected to a company paramour of his wife especially

when he knew of such illicit relationship. She further submits that apart

3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 22-02-2024 08:50:00 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024276

CRM-M-3345-2024 4

2024:PHHC:024276

from the disclosure made by co-accused Sawan, there is no

incriminating evidence against the petitioner and the disclosure made

by Sawan while in police custody cannot be relied upon in view of

Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.

6. Petitioner is behind bars for more than 01 year, 06 months

and 23 days. Whole of the case of the prosecution is based upon

circumstantial evidence and there cannot be any apprehension that the

petitioner shall tamper with any of the evidence.

7. Per contra, State counsel submits that in view of serious

heinous crime involved, the petitioner does not deserve to be released

on bail. However, he does not dispute that apart from the disclosure

made by co-accused, there is no other incriminating evidence against

the petitioner.

8. After hearing rival contentions of both the counsels,

without commenting on the merits of the case, keeping in view the

incarceration suffered by the petitioner and the nature of evidence

against the petitioner, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is

ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety

bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate,

concerned.

9. Needless to say nothing recorded herein shall be construed

to be an expression of an opinion on the merits of the case.

                                                   (PANKAJ JAIN)
                                                       JUDGE
21.02.2024
Dinesh                       Whether speaking/reasoned :               Yes
                             Whether Reportable :                      No

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024276

4 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 22-02-2024 08:50:00 :::