This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC 1973 challenging custody in a murder case. The petitioner argued custodia interrogation would serve no purpose despite witness contradictions. The court dismissed noting credibility is for trial court and petitioner did not show special case.
Bail petition dismissed. All pending applications disposed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
CRM-M-531-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-531-2022 Reserved on: 04.02.2022 Pronounced on: 09.02.2022
Deepak ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana …Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
| FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
|---|---|---|---|
| 333 | 12.09.2020 | Sadar Gohana, |
148, 149, 302, 342, 365 & |
| District Sonepat | 506 IPC (Sections 148 & 149 | ||
| IPC deleted and Section 34 | |||
| IPC added later on) |
REASONING:
ANJU RANI opinion. In the FIR, Sumit Kumar, the complainant (PW-4), alleged that he had seen five 2022.02.09 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH 1
1
2
CRM-M-531-2022
persons, including the petitioner, inflicting injuries on his elder brother Amit. During the trial, in his examination-in-chief, he again named all the five accused who have caused injuries in his presence. However, on the day of the examination-in-chief, the defence counsel was able to procure an adjournment on the grounds of his ill health, and the trial court deferred the cross-examination of Sumit Kumar. After a gap of more than two months, when he was re-examined, the eye witness took a summersault and contradicted his previous versions. The petitioner seeks bail primarily on the ground that none of the four eye witnesses, including the real brother of the deceased have supported the prosecution’s case. However, in my considered opinion, it is for the trial court to analyse his previous statements and contradictory versions to conclude his credibility. This court ought not to give any finding on the credibility because such an approach is most likely to prejudice the accused or the prosecution. Given this, the petitioner fails to make out a special case for bail.
ANJU RANI 2022.02.09 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH
2
3
CRM-M-531-2022
matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.
Petition dismissed in aforesaid terms . All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE
February 09, 2022 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.
ANJU RANI 2022.02.09 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH
3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC 1973 in a murder case where prosecution witnesses have contradicted previous statements.
Whether the petitioner failed to establish a special case for bail considering consistency of evidence and nature of offence.
Whether the trial court can analyze contradictory testimonies to conclude credibility of eye witnesses.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of PunjabExplained¶6
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30) · Who else cites this
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh RanjanExplained¶6
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18) · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan v BalchandExplained¶6
State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3) · Who else cites this
Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public ProsecutorExplained¶6
Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, (Para 16) · Who else cites this
Prahlad Singh Bhati v NCT, DelhiExplained¶6
Prahlad Singh Bhati v NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280 · Who else cites this
Dataram Singh v State of Uttar PradeshExplained¶6
Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Deepak
State of Haryana
ANoop Chitkara
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
