Allowed

Jitender Singh @ Daik v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Dec 2021CRM-M/51693/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to the petitioner, Jitender Singh @ Daik, in a bail petition challenging his detention under Sections 325 and 326 IPC. The court allowed the petition based on the parity principle, noting that co-accused had been released and acknowledging the delays caused by the pandemic, without commenting on the case merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the trial court or Duty Magistrate.

Jitender Singh @ Daik Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

201

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M No. 51693 of 2021

¶4

DATE OF DECISION : 16.12.2021

¶5

Jitender Singh @Daik …Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana …Respondent

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶9

Present: Mr. Bhupender Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.

¶11

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

This is third foray of the petitioner before this court, seeking regular bail in FIR No. 456 dated 13.12.2019, registered under Sections 148, 149, 323,324, 452, 506 IPC (Sections 148 and 149 IPC deleted and Sections 34, 325, 326 IPC added later on) at Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal.

¶13

Per FIR, on 13.12.2019, ruqa was received in the police station regarding admission of injured Ashok Kumar in hospital on account of injuries sustained by him in a fight. Upon receiving ruqa, HC Nirmal Singh along with other police officials reached Government Hospital, Karnal and after obtaining opinion from the doctor, recorded the statement of injured who deposed to the effect that on 12.12.2019 at about

¶14

8.00/8.30 p.m., he was sitting inside his shop and at that time, accused SHALINI BHATIA 2021.12.16 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

Jitender @ Daik (present petitioner) armed with gandasi , Ricky alias Rinku armed with sword, Tinku, Hawa Singh, Maha Singh and Rajbir @ Raj armed with bindas attacked him. Petitioner Jitender Singh @ Daik gave gandasi blow on the left hand of injured and other accused also inflicted injuries due to which he fell inside the shop. After inflicting injuries, all the accused left the place and while going the petitioner threatened to kill the injured. Injured was taken to hospital by his family members and maternal uncle. On the basis of statement, formal FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out. After obtaining x-ray reports and opinion of the doctor, Sections 325/326 IPC were added. Accused were arrested.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that FIR has been registered as a counter blast to FIR No.310 dated 03.09.2019 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 452, 506 IPC which was got registered by the accused persons against the complainant/injured. No independent witness was joined.

¶17

Learned counsel further contends that petitioner is in custody since 19.12.2019. Investigation has already concluded and challan has been presented. He submits that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in preventive custody any more.

¶18

Learned counsel also submits that on the grounds of parity also, petitioner is entitled to concession of regular bail as his co-accused, namely, Vishal @ Ala has already been granted regular bail by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide order dated 12.02.2020 and co-accused Rinku has also been granted regular bail by this Court

¶19

SHALINI BHATIA 2021.12.16 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

vide order dated 04.08.2020 passed in CRM-M-18868 of 2020 (Annexure

¶21

P-5).

¶22

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail petition and submits that grievous injury has been attributed to the petitioner as he hit the complainant with gandasi on his left hand.

¶23

Learned State counsel on instructions from SI Jasbir Singh further submits that charges were framed against the accused on 31.01.2020. Out of nine witnesses, one witness has already been examined and the next date fixed before learned trial Court for recording remaining evidence of the prosecution is 23.12.2021. He further submits that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 03 years by the Principle Magistrate, Juvenille Justice Board, in FIR No.160 dated 09.06.2012 registered under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC, Police Station Madhuban, vide order dated 31.05.2014.

¶24

I have heard rival contentions of the respective learned

¶25

counsels.

¶26

The trial is not likely to conclude soon in view of the situation arisen due to the current pandemic situation. The investigation is already over and charges have been framed. The case before the trial court is now fixed for prosecution evidence.

¶27

Considering the overall scenario and also granting the concession of parity, without commenting on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to keep the petitioner in further preventive custody.

¶28

Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned

¶29

SHALINI BHATIA 2021.12.16 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

trial Court where his case is being tried and in case he/she is not available,

¶31

before learned Duty Magistrate, as the case may be.

¶32

It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioner is found involved in any other FIR while on bail, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.

¶33

DECEMBER 16, 2021 (ARUN MONGA) Shalini JUDGE

¶34

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

¶35

SHALINI BHATIA 2021.12.16 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jitender Singh @ Daik v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitender Singh @ Daik 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagvir Vs Secretary, District Legal Service Authority and Ors.

Kapil Saini Vs State of Haryana and Others

Khurshid Khan Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sanjana and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Chaman Lal and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others