Allowed

Vikram v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Oct 2021CRM-M/21207/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, Vikram, moved the High Court for grant of regular bail in an F.I.R. registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. Although not named in the initial F.I.R., he was nominated based on a supplementary statement alleging he conducted a recce to facilitate a murder. Counsel submitted he was named only to find a case and was already in custody for over a ye

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

Vikram Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh

¶2

CRM-M-21207-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision:-5.10.2021

¶3

Vikram … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Haryana ... Respondent

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

¶7

Present:Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate with Mr. Lakshay Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, DAG, Haryana, assisted by SI Umesh.

¶9

(proceedings conducted through video conferencing)

¶10

¶11

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J .(Oral)

¶12

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered against him vide FIR No.240 dated 5.6.2020 at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonepat under Sections 148, 149, 202, 302, 420, 468, 471, 212, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act.

¶13

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Indu wife of Sanjay (deceased). It is alleged that the complainant’s husband namely Sanjay was running a grocery shop at village bus stand. On 5.6.2020 at about 6 p.m. when she was going

¶14

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2021.10.05 19:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

( 2 ) CRM-M-21207-2021 (O&M)

¶16

towards her husband’s shop in connection with some personal work and was about 20-30 meters short of the shop, she saw a boy on a motorcycle accompanied by another 3 boys on scooty and that one of the said three boys on scooty was Romil, who was carrying a pistol in his hand. It is alleged that even his companions were also carrying pistols. Romil is stated to have fired a shot from the pistol hitting the complainant’s husband on his chest. Another boy fired at the temple of complainant’s husband. When the complainant rushed forward to rescue her husband, then Romil threatened her to keep away otherwise she would also be killed. The complainant alleged that Romil and his companions had killed her husband because of old enmity.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is nowhere named in the FIR and is sought to be nominated on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 8.6.2020 and that the said supplementary statement is apparently an improvement and would not carry any evidentiary value.

¶18

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since the supplementary statement was made shortly after lodging of the FIR i.e. after about 3 days, wherein the petitioner is specifically alleged to have conducted a recce of the place of occurrence so as to facilitate the commission of crime, no case for grant of bail is made out. Learned State counsel has, however, informed that the petitioner as on date has been behind bars since the last about 1 year and 3 months and that he is not involved in any other case. It has been informed that as on date not even a single PW out of the cited 14 PWs has been examined and infact charges are yet to be framed.

¶19

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

¶20

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2021.10.05 19:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

( 3 ) CRM-M-21207-2021 (O&M)

¶22

It is correct that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and came to be nominated subsequently on the basis of supplementary statement recorded on 8.6.2020. However, even if the said supplementary statement is taken to be correct, still the only role that is attributed to the petitioner is that he had conducted a recce of the place of occurrence and had informed his coaccused about the movements and presence of the deceased so as to facilitate the commission of crime. It is not the case of prosecution that the petitioner had also participated in firing at the deceased or that he was also present at the spot. The petitioner, in any case, has been behind bars since the last about 1 year and 3 months and conclusion of trial is likely to consume time as not even a single PW out of the cited 14 PWs has been examined so far. The petitioner is not stated to be involved in any other case. In these circumstances, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶23

5.10.2021 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge

¶24

Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No

¶25

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2021.10.05 19:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Vikram v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdeep Singh @ Deepu Vs State of Punjab

Mandeep Vs State of Haryana

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Pradeep Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Another

Gurpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Another

Deepak Vs State of Haryana