Surender @ Sunder vs State Of Haryana on 15 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

Surender @ Sunder vs State Of Haryana on 15 February, 2024

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:021337




                                                                     2024:PHHC:021337


215          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH


                                                  CRM-M-6908-2024
                                                  Date of decision: 15.02.2024


Surender @ Sunder                                                     ....Petitioner

                                      Versus

State of Haryana                                                      ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:     Mr. Kuldeep Singh Siwach, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, AAG, Haryana.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.191 dated 19.05.2023 under

Sections 323/324/452/506/34 IPC (Sections 326 and 307 of IPC added later on)

registered at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad.

The prosecution story in brief is that on 18.05 2023 at about 09.30

PM., when the complainant – Geeta wife of Manoj Kumar was in her parental

house, then her husband/co-accused Manoj Kumar son of Jai Parkash, resident

of village Madhoana along with one unknown boy, to whom she does not know,

came on a separate motor-cycle, whereas co-accused Amit (son of maternal

uncle of co-accused Manoj) along with one another unknown boy, to whom she

does not know, was on another separate motor-cycle, came to her in her parental

house and started beating her, her elder sister Kanta and mother Santosh. Co-

accused Manoj caused injuries to her, her elder sister Kanta and mother Santosh

with iron-pipe and ice-pick (Sua), while other persons also caused injuries to them

1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 16-02-2024 08:45:01 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:021337

2024:PHHC:021337
CRM-M-6908-2024 -2-

(complainant party) with iron-rod and iron-pipe. On hearing noise, her cousin

Ram Niwas son of Ranjeet, resident of village Dhani Gopal rushed to the spot

and on seeing him, all the assailants fled away from the spot along with their

weapons, while raising threat to kill them, in future. The complainant further

alleged that assailants left their motor-cycles bearing registration No.

HR-23G/0721 make Delux; and bearing registration No. HR- 22H/2216 make

Platina at the spot itself. Complainant further alleged that motive behind this

assault was that her husband is a drunkard and thus she has come to her parental

house and she does not want to live with her husband in her matrimonial house,

due to which her husband/co-accused Manoj Kumar along with co-accused

Amit and 02 (two) other unknown boys, caused injuries to them, without any

reason. Complainant requested to take legal action against assailants.

Complainant further alleged that her cousin Rohtash son of Wazir Singh,

resident of village Dhani Gopal got them admitted in CHC, Bhuna, from where

they were referred to MAMC Agroha.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the

injury attracting Sections 326 & 307 of IPC has been specifically attributed to

co-accused-Manoj and the present dispute is the outcome of the matrimonial

dispute between Manoj and his wife, namely, Geeta who is the complainant.

The petitioner is behind the bars since 22.11.2023 and similarly situated co-

accused, namely, Amandeep @ Bhairo was granted concession of regular bail

by this Court vide order dated 25.01.2024 passed in CRM-M-2988-2024 titled

as ‘Amandeep @ Bhairo Vs. State of Haryana’ (Annexure P-2).

Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the grant of regular

bail to the petitioner on the ground that the role of the petitioner has been

2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 16-02-2024 08:45:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:021337

2024:PHHC:021337
CRM-M-6908-2024 -3-

established who has actively participated in the alleged occurrence and one iron

pipe used as weapon in the alleged occurrence has been recovered from him on

the basis of disclosure statement made by him. He further submits that the

petitioner is involved in three more cases, and thus, does not deserve the

concession of regular bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the

record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars since

22.11.2023 and similarly situated co-accused, namely, Amandeep @ Bhairo was

granted concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 25.01.2024

passed in CRM-M-2988-2024 titled as ‘Amandeep @ Bhairo Vs. State of

Haryana.’ The investigating agency has already concluded the investigation

and filed the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on 28.12.2023. There are 19

PWs and the trial is yet to commence. So further incarceration of the petitioner

without there being the prospect of the conclusion of the trial in the near future,

would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Culpability, if any,

would be determined at the time of trial.

Keeping in view the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India in ‘Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and Another’, 2020 (1)

R.C.R. (Criminal) 831 and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P.

and others, 2012(2) SCC 382, the involvement of the petitioner in other cases

would not be a ground to refuse grant of concession of regular bail.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Without

commenting on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the outcome of the

trial, petitioner-Surender @ Sunder is ordered to be released on regular bail

subject to his furnishing requisite bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of

3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 16-02-2024 08:45:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:021337

2024:PHHC:021337
CRM-M-6908-2024 -4-

the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of

opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed

without being prejudiced by observations of this Court.





                                              (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
                                                    JUDGE
15.02.2024
Neha

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




                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:021337

                                     4 of 4
                  ::: Downloaded on - 16-02-2024 08:45:02 :::
 

[ad_2]

Add a Comment

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