Pawan Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 21 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pawan Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 21 February, 2024

Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul

Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul

                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024212




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH
225
                                          2024:PHHC:024212
                                          CRM-M-39779-2023
                                          Date of decision: February 21, 2024

PAWAN KUMAR
                                                                          ...Petitioner

                                       Versus

STATE OF HARYANA
                                                                       ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:    Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Ms. Trishanjali Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case

FIR No.214 dated 03.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) under Section 302 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 34 and 120-B of the IPC added later on), registered

at Police Station Shahzadpur, District Ambala.

2. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce the

relevant portion of the FIR in question, which has been annexed as Annexure P-

1, hereinbelow: –

“Today on dated 03.09.2022, at about 5:40 PM, I was going
through the ‘Pacci’ street of Ravi Dass Mandir towards my Village
Bharapur, on feet, and then at a distance of about 5 feet from the
street, one person was seen lying in bushes, wearing one Red T-
shirt and deep blue colour trouser. Thereafter, I sided the bushes
with my hands, and then I saw that one person aged about 40
years was lying there in dead condition, having substantial injury
marks at the back of his head and lot of blood was oozing from the
head, and whereupon, lot of flies and ants were there upon him.

1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 22-02-2024 08:02:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024212

CRM-M-39779-2023 -2-

Inquiry was made from the surrounding area, but his whereabouts
could not be made known. I gave information in the said regard to
the police, The unknown person has been murdered by unknown
persons, by giving injuries on head. Strict legal action may kindly
be taken against the person, who committed the murder. I have got
recorded my statement to you, heard and understood and the same
is correct. Sd/- Onkar Singh”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the case

in hand rests on circumstantial evidence and the FIR in question came to be

registered on the statement of one Onkar Singh. Learned counsel has submitted

that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, motive to commit the crime is

the most relevant factor; however, in the case in hand, motive had been

allegedly spelt out by PW-4 Ankush Kumar (brother-in-law of the deceased-

Sunil), who however, while stepping into the witness box, had not supported the

case of the prosecution, as a result of which, he was declared hostile. In support,

learned counsel has placed on record the deposition of PW-4 Ankush Kumar,

wherein it stands revealed that this witness categorically deposed that his sister

was happily married with the deceased and had been living with him along with

their children. Learned counsel has submitted that as per the case set up by the

prosecution, the murder in question had been committed on account of the

deceased being in an illicit relationship with the wife of the petitioner and since

the deceased had been ill-treating the petitioner’s wife, the petitioner as well as

his 16 year old son decided to eliminate the deceased by taking him to a forest

area and after murdering him, throwing his body into the bushes. Learned

counsel has, thus, argued that once PW-4 Ankush Kumar, who had allegedly

spelt out the motive for the petitioner to commit the crime in question, had

categorically deposed that his sister was leading a happy married life with the

2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 22-02-2024 08:02:31 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024212

CRM-M-39779-2023 -3-

deceased; there was no question of either the deceased being in an illicit

relationship with the wife of the petitioner or having ever ill-treated the

petitioner’s wife. Learned counsel has further submitted that since 5 prosecution

witnesses including the complainant as well as PW-4 Ankush Kumar, who

allegedly spelt out the motive to commit the crime in question, had been

examined, further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose

as 27 prosecution witnesses still remained to be examined.

4. Learned State counsel has filed the affidavit of the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Naraingarh, District Ambala on behalf of the

respondent-State in the Court today, which is taken on record subject to just

exceptions. While opposing the prayer made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned State counsel, on instructions, has not been able to dispute

that PW-4 Ankush Kumar, who allegedly spelt out the motive to commit the

crime, had been examined and had also been declared hostile during trial. She

has also not disputed that 27 prosecution witnesses remain to be examined.

Learned State counsel has, however, submitted that there was one CCTV

footage collected by the investigating agency, wherein the deceased was seen

accompanying the petitioner as well as the co-accused i.e. his son in a car, prior

to the occurrence in question; from which it could be safely inferred that the

petitioner along with his son had committed the murder of the deceased and

thereafter, thrown his dead body in the bushes alongside the road. She has

reiterated the motive on the part of the petitioner and the co-accused to commit

the crime in question i.e. the alleged live-in relationship of the deceased and the

wife of the petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material placed on record.

3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 22-02-2024 08:02:31 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024212

CRM-M-39779-2023 -4-

6. The case in hand hinges on circumstantial evidence. The witness,

who spelt out the motive, did not support the case of the prosecution during

trial, as a result of which, he was declared hostile. Since the sole material

witness stands examined, further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no

useful purpose as the likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future looks

remote in view of 27 prosecution witnesses still remaining to be examined and

there can be no possibility of the petitioner influencing the remaining witnesses.

7. In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this

Court deems it fit to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly,

the instant petition is allowed; the petitioner be admitted to bail to the

satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

8. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall

not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

February 21, 2024                                 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Jaspreet Kaur                                           JUDGE

                    Whether speaking/reasoned         :      Yes/No
                    Whether reportable                :      Yes/No




                                                            Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024212

                                         4 of 4
                     ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2024 08:02:31 :::
 

[ad_2]

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *