Dismissed

Rajnesh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Dec 2023CRM-M/54277/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the bail application of an accused with a convicted criminal history facing charges under Section 302 IPC and others. Relying on the severity of the offense and past record, the court denied bail and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within six months.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed. Trial expedited to be concluded within six months.

Rajnesh Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

CRM-M-54277-2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-54277-2023 Reserved on: 05.12.2023 Pronounced on: 13.12.2023

Rajnesh

...Pe��oner

Versus

State of Haryana …Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶9

Present: Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocate for the pe��oner.

¶10

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

¶11

¶12

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶13

FIR No.	Dated	Police Sta0on	Sec0ons
160	21.11.2021	Bahin, District Palwal	147, 149, 323, 307, 427, IPC and
			(120-B IPC added during
			inves�ga�on) and 25 of Arms Act

¶14

The pe��oner incarcerated in the FIR cap�oned above has come up before this Court under Sec�on 439 CrPC seeking bail.

¶15

In paragraph 12 of the bail applica�on, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:

¶16

Sr. No.	FIR No.	Dated	Offences	Police Sta0on
1.	28	28.01.2019	323,452,506 IPC	Bahin,District Palwal
2.	182	15.04.2020	302 IPC	Sadar,Nuh
3.	247	04.11.2018	148, 149, 427, 452, 506 IPC	Bahin, District Palwal
4.	167	11.08.2018	323, 452, 342, 506, 427 IPC and 25 of Arms Act	Bahin, District Palwal

¶17

The facts of the case are being taken from reply dated 04.12.2023 filed by the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police, which reads as follows:

¶18

1. That the present case bearing FIR no. 160 dated 21.11.2021, P.S Bahin, District Palwal was ini ally registered under sec ons 147, 149, 323, 307, 427 of IPC and

¶19

25 of Arms Act against Dharampal, Rajnesh (present pe oner) sons of Hoshiyar,

¶20

JYOTI 2023.12.13 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶21

¶22

CRM-M-54277-2023

¶23

Babita wife of Rajnesh, Omwa wife of Hoshiyar, Hoshiyar son of Chhoturam, Anil son of Kartar, Renu wife of Anil, Savita wife of Dharampal and 3 unknown persons upon complaint of Sunil son of Chandaram with regard to the incident dated 21.11.2021 at about 9:00 A.M in which Dhakeli wife of Lekhraj sustained bodily injuries. A true translated English version of his complaint is appended below for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court:-

¶24

"I, Sunil son of Chandaram, caste Jaat, am a permanent resident of village Gehlab. Today on 21.11.2021 at about 9:00 A.M, I was at my home and at that me, Dharampal, Rajnesh sons of Hoshiyar, Babita wife of Rajnesh, Omwa wife of Hoshiyar, Hoshiyar son of Chhoturam, Anil son of Kartar, Renu wife of Anil and Savita wife of Dharampal, resident of Gehlab all together had come to my house and they were equipped with cudgels (DANDA/BETE), iron rods and illegal pistols. Soon on arrival, they had damaged a car bearing no. HR 52G 5694 standing infront of our house. Rajnesh straight fired with a KATTA at my sister-in-law (BHABHI) namely Dhakeli wife of Lekhraj, resident of village Gehlab with an inten on to kill her, which hit at our iron gate and my sister-in-law (BHABHI) sustained wounds on her hand and face by the pellets. ThereaAer all of them pelted stones aAer moun ng on roofs. Rajnesh also fired at me, which I narrowly escaped from. Rajnesh and one more person then fired from rear of our house. They also fired 8/9 mes in front of the gate. We raised the alarm Bachao-2 and we made a call to P.S Bahin at 112. Then a request to take ac on against the accused persons was made".

¶25

2. That aAer registra on of the FIR, the inves ga on of the case was carried out by ASI Omparkash and he inspected the place of occurrence and prepared its rough sketch. During inspec on, he recovered five empty cartridges and five bullets from the spot and took them into police possession as evidence of the crime. He also recorded statements of the witnesses.

¶26

3. That on 21.11.2021, the accused Dharampal, Hoshiyar and Kartar were arrested and interrogated. During interroga on, they made their respec ve disclosure statements admiDng their involvement in commission of the crime.

¶27

On the basis of their disclosure statements, the offence punishable under sec on 120B of IPC was added to the case.

¶28

4. That on 28.11.2021, a compact disc (CD), a pen drive containing CCTV footage covering the occurrence and photos of the damaged Brezza car were produced

¶29

JYOTI 2023.12.13 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶30

¶31

CRM-M-54277-2023

¶32

by the complainant and thus, the same were taken on record as evidence.

¶33

5. That the injured Dhakeli was medico legally examined at CHC Hathin. A copy of her MLR and sealed medical parcels were obtained and taken on record as evidence. A copy of her MLR is aIached herewith as Annexure "R-1" for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

¶34

6. That on comple on of the inves ga on qua the accused Dharampal, Hoshiyar and Kartar, the final report under sec on 173(2) of Cr.P.C was filed against them in the Learned Court of Area Magistrate, Hathin, Palwal on 8.2.2022.

¶35

7. That on 18.1.2022 the accused Rajnesh was arrested and interrogated. During interroga on, he made his disclosure statement admiDng to have commiIed the crime. Pursuant thereto, he got recovered a KATTA of 315 bore and the same was taken into police possession as evidence of the crime. He also demarcated the place of occurrence.

¶36

8. That the case property was sent to FSL. Madhuban for their examina on and report. The mandatory sanc on as prescribed under sec on 39 of Arms Act was obtained against the accused Rajnesh from the authority concerned and taken on record.

¶37

Counsel for the pe��oner seeks bail firstly on the ground of pre-trial custody of 01 year and 11 months and secondly on the ground that the charges have been framed and the complainant is inten�onally delaying the trial which is affec�ng the pe��oner’s liberty. He contends that the pre-trial incarcera�on would cause an irreversible injus�ce to the pe��oner and family.

¶38

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

¶39

I have heard counsel for the par�es and gone through the pleadings. REASONING:

¶40

The pe��oner’s first ground is pre-trial custody of 01 year and 11 months. However, as per custody cer�ficate dated 04.12.2023, the pe��oner’s custody in the present case is of 10 months and 11 days. It is for the reason that the pe��oner was convicted in some other case and the custody has been deducted in the said case. In addi�on to that, the pe��oner has massive criminal history including one case under

¶41

JYOTI 2023.12.13 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶42

¶43

CRM-M-54277-2023

¶44

Sec�on 302 IPC and in case the pe��oner was not granted bail, he would not have commiBed any offence, as such, the pe��oner is not en�tled to bail on the ground of pre-trial custody. The pe��oner’s second ground also does not en�tle him for grant of bail. The trial Court to ensure that the trial is not delayed because of any tac�cs at the end of any of the prosecu�on witnesses.

¶45

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

¶46

While considering each bail pe��on of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the an�thesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Informa�on Reports, wherein the bail pe��oner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecu�ons resul�ng in acquiBal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecu�on stands withdrawn, or prosecu�on 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.

¶47

The pe��oner has criminal history of heinous and grave crimes. The pe��on 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.

¶48

On merits, there is specific allega�on that the pe��oner had fired at one lady and the fire missed, she suffered injuries on her hand because of the pellets. In addi�on to that, the pe��oner also fired a gun shot at the complainant Sunil. In all, 8 to 9 shots were fired which shows the inten�on to kill. As such, it is not a case for bail.

¶49

A perusal of the bail pe��on and the documents aBached, primafacie points towards the pe��oner’s involvement and does not make out a case for bail and he is neither en�tled to bail on merits nor on the grounds of prolonged pre-trial incarcera�on. Any further discussions are likely to prejudice the pe��oner; this court refrains from doing so.

¶50

Any observa�on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. The pe00on is dismissed . All pending applica�ons, if any, stand closed. However, considering the pe��oner's right to speedy trial coupled with the pre-trial incarcera�on, this court requests the concerned trial court to make all endeavours to conclude the trial JYOTI within six months, of which the prosecu�on evidence be completed preferably within 2023.12.13 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 4

¶51

¶52

CRM-M-54277-2023

¶53

five months and the remaining �me 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 necessary direc�ons in this regard. It is clarified that if expedi�ng this trial disturbs the 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 men�oning such reasons. It is clarified that this order speeding up the trial is subject to the condi�on that neither the pe��oner shall seek any adjournment nor try to use any tac�cs to delay the trial. If they do so, this order of expedi�ng the trial shall stand automa�cally recalled by resor�ng to Sec�on 362, read with Sec�on 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without any further reference to this court. If any of the accused is on bail and fails to aBend the trial without any sufficient cause, then they be dealt with strictly but in accordance with the law. It is clarified that if the trial is not concluded by the date men�oned above, and if the delay is not aBributable to the pe��oner, then the pe��oner may file an applica�on for bail before the trial court, which shall decide it expedi�ously and consider the bail on the grounds of pre-trial custody, and all the previous orders of dismissal passed by the trial court or High Court shall not come in the way.

¶54

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 13.12.2023 Jyo0-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶55

JYOTI 2023.12.13 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶56

Rajnesh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnesh 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

Raghvir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Warden Jasbir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kasmiri Lal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Manpreet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Kulwinder Kaur @ Palvi and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Sukhjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others