Dismissed

Dinesh Kumar @ Sonu v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Aug 2023CRM-M/14530/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a bail petition under Section 439 CrPC. The petitioner, a recidivist with a history of heinous crimes including murder, was not granted bail due to high risk of repeat offenses. The court directed the trial court to conclude the trial by December 31, 2023, to ensure spedid trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail denied; trial court directed to conclude trial by Dec 31, 2023, with prosecution evidence by Oct 31, 2023.

Dinesh Kumar @ Sonu Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No.:2023:PHHC:105496

¶3

CRM-M-14530-2023

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CRM-M-14530-2023 Reserved on: 31.07.2023 Pronounced on: 16.08.2023

Dinesh Kumar @ Sonu

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

…Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶12

Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate For the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Manish Bansal, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

¶14

¶15

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶16

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
0265	23.06.2020	Kharkhoda, District	302/34 IPC and Sections
		Sonipat	25/54/59 of Arms Act

¶17

The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail.

¶18

In paragraph 16 of the bail petition, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:

¶19

Sr. No.	FIR No.	Date	Offences	Police Station
1	400	07.09.2020	307, 120-B, 34 IPC and	Palam Vihar, District
			Section 25 of Arms Act	Gurugram

¶20

The petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

¶21

While opposing bail, the contentions on behalf of the State are that given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail.

¶22

REASONING:

¶23

In Paramjeet Singh v. State of Punjab , 2022:PHHC:003983 [Para 8] , CRM-M 50243 of 2021, this court observed,

¶24

ANJU RANI 2023.08.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-14530-2023

Neutral Citation No.:2023:PHHC:105496

¶29

While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles.

¶30

The prosecution’s case is that on 23.06.2020 the complainant received a phone call and was informed that a dead body of a boy was lying in the field of one Jagbir . The complainant reached the spot but could not identify him and subsequently the deceased was identified as Sushil @sheela. The petitioner is named in the supplementary statement and is a member of Sandeep Barwasani gang. Thus, considering the state’s reply and contents of para 5, the petitioner does not deserve concession of bail.

¶31

The petitioner has criminal history of heinous and grave crimes. The petition does not refer to any averment based on which this court is assured that if this recidivist is released on bail, then he shall not indulge in criminal behavior.

¶32

A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached, primafacie points towards the petitioner’s involvement and does not make out a case for bail and he is neither entitled to bail on merits nor on the grounds of prolonged pre-trial incarceration. Any further discussions are likely to prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so.

¶33

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶34

The petition is dismissed . All pending applications, if any, stand closed. However, considering the petitioner's right to speedy trial coupled with the pre-trial incarceration, this court requests the concerned trial court to make all endeavours to conclude the trial by Dec 31, 2023, of which the prosecution evidence be completed by Oct 31, 2023, and latest by Nov 30, 2023, and the remaining time to provide an opportunity to the accused to lead defence evidence, if so desired, and to conclude its hearing. To meet the deadline, an endeavour be made to speed up the process for service and to pass the ANJU RANI necessary directions in this regard. It is clarified that if expediting this trial disturbs the 2023.08.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2

¶35

¶36

CRM-M-14530-2023

¶37

Neutral Citation No.:2023:PHHC:105496

¶38

docket of the concerned court, then a balance be struck, and if, on this account, any delay happens, then an extension can be sought by mentioning such reasons. It is clarified that this order speeding up the trial is subject to the condition that neither the petitioner shall seek any adjournment nor try to use any tactics to delay the trial. If they do so, this order of expediting the trial shall stand automatically recalled by resorting to Section 362, read with Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without any further reference to this court. If any of the accused is on bail and fail(s) to attend the trial without any sufficient cause, then they be dealt with strictly but in accordance with law.

¶39

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶40

16.08.2023 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶41

ANJU RANI 2023.08.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

Dinesh Kumar @ Sonu v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar @ Sonu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satnam Singh @ Sonu Vs State of Punjab

Imran Ahmed Wani Vs State of Punjab

Bikramjit Singh Bajwa Vs Director General of Police and Others

Hardeep Raj Vs State of Punjab

Daljit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Arnav Grover Vs Union Territory Chandigarh and Another