Allowed

Ajay @ Kalia v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Aug 2024CRM-M/2954/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed regular bail to the petitioner under S. 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder case, citing over five years of incarceration and the examination of private witnesses, applying the precedent in Dalip Singh @ Deepa.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner admitted to regular bail on furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

Ajay @ Kalia Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

220

¶3

CRM-M-2954-2024 Date of Decision: 14.08.2024

AJAY @ KALIA

…..Pe,,oner

Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA

…..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶10

Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate and Mr. Amritpal Singh Maan, Advocate for the pe��oner.

¶11

Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. AG. Haryana.

¶12

******

¶13

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Prayer in this pe��on filed under Sec�on 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 403 dated 27.10.2018, under Sec�ons 148, 149, 302, 323, 379 and 506 (later added under Sec�ons 201, 212 and 120-B IPC), registered at Police Sta�on Kanina, District Mahendargarh.

¶15

This is a second pe��on. The earlier pe��on bearing CRM-M No.18180-2023 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07.10.2023 (Annexure P-13).

¶16

FIR was lodged on the complaint of Poonam wife of deceased Vivek. As per the complaint, rela�ons between the complainant party and that of the accused party were inimical because of the dispute rela�ng to land and tubewell, on account of which the accused, namely Surender, Naresh; and sons of Surender namely Vijay, Ajay (pe��oner) and Billu had entered fight with them on several occasions. On 22.10.2018, accused Ajay alias Kalia - pe��oner had a fight with Vivek (deceased) & complainant Poonam, regarding which ma@er was reported to the Police. Complainant was even medico legally examined. It was further alleged that on 26.10.2018, complainant and her husband were working in the fields. At about 06:15 PM, Surender, Naresh, Ajay (pe��oner), Vijay and Billu and Munesh w/o Surender armed with rods, s�cks and axe etc. came there. On seeing

¶17

PRIYANKA 2024.08.14 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-2954-2024

¶19

-2-

¶20

them, Vivek asked her (complainant) to go home and call other persons from the village. As the complainant started to leave, she saw that Ajay gave blow with rod on the right leg of her husband due to which he fell down and then all the assailants gave bea�ngs to her husband with various kinds of weapons like rod, s�cks, axe and jelly. On raising alarm by the complainant, assailants fled away, taking away the tractor of the complainant standing in the fields. Subsequently, Vivek was declared dead in the government hospital.

¶21

Learned Senior counsel contends that although the earlier pe��on bearing CRM-M No.18180-2023 was dismissed on merits by this Court, but ever since then 16 out of 23 witnesses have been examined. All the private witnesses including Poonam widow of the deceased, alleged eye witnesses Parmod and Surinder Pal have also been examined. PWs Surinder Pal and Parmod have not supported the prosecu�on case. Learned Senior Advocate has drawn a@en�on towards the tes�mony of PW Poonam in order to contend that her tes�mony is not reliable as it is not expected that being a wife of the deceased she will go home to arrange the money and then will take the injured to the hospital.

¶22

Learned Senior counsel for the pe��oner has also drawn a@en�on towards the custody cer�ficate revealing that pe��oner is already in custody for the last more than 05 years and 09 months and that even if he was ul�mately convicted, his sentence was liable to be suspended aFer a period of 05 years as per the decision of Full Bench of this Court rendered in Dalip Singh @ Deepa Vs.

¶23

State of Punjab, 2010(2) RCR (Criminall) 566.

¶24

Learned State counsel has opposed the bail pe��on by submiGng that earlier bail pe��on was rejected by this Court on merits. However, it is conceded by learned State counsel that as of now, all the private witnesses have been examined and rest of the un-witnesses are official witnesses being either police officials or doctors. The custody cer�ficate placed on record would indicate that the pe��oner is in custody for the last 05 years, 09 months and 12 days, though he is also involved in one more case pertaining to Sec�ons 323 and 324 IPC.

¶25

Having regard to all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, par�cularly long incarcera�on of the pe��oner and the fact that material witnesses have already been examined, but without commen�ng anything on

¶26

PRIYANKA 2024.08.14 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-M-2954-2024

¶28

-3-

¶29

the merits of the case, pe��on is allowed. Pe��oner is admi@ed to regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the sa�sfac�on of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, on usual terms and condi�ons.

¶30

			(DEEPAK GUPTA)
14.08.2024			JUDGE
pry
	Whether speaking/reasoned	:	Yes/No
	Whether reportable	:	Yes/No

¶31

PRIYANKA 2024.08.14 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ajay @ Kalia v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay @ Kalia 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

Gurtej Singh Vs M/S Kalgidhar Trading Company/ Commsssion Agent Thr Its Partners

Hem Raj Vs Narcotics Control Bureau Chandigarh

M/S G.K. Enterprises and Anr. Vs Vinod Mittal

Amit Manocha Vs J.K Nanda and Anr.

Nishi Vs Madan Gopal

Chaman Lal Vs Usha Kumari