Allowed

Munesh Kumar v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Aug 2024CRM-M/34547/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Munesh Kumar sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in a murder case where investigation concluded and challan was presented. The court allowed bail due to prolonged incarceration despite the heinous nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

Munesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRM-M-34547-2024

¶2

¶3

205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-34547-2024 Date of decision : 22.08.2024

¶5

MUNESH KUMAR ....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶9

Present : Mr. Ashish Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Apurv Garg, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Ms. Manju Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

¶11

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶12

This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.607 dated 17.11.2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 346/302/120-B/201 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station City Palwal, District Palwal.

¶13

Status report by way of affidavit of Mohinder Singh, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palwal, District Palwal has been filed on

¶14

Deepak Kumar 2024.08.22 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRM-M-34547-2024

¶16

¶17

behalf of the respondent/State today in Court, which is taken on record. Copy supplied.

¶18

FIR was registered under Section 346 IPC on the complaint made by Anil son of Hargyan w.r.t. missing of his brother namely Praveen. It is claimed that on 25^th of November, 2020 intimation was received w.r.t. a dead body having been detected inside a well in village Kakrali, Palwal. The same was identified to be of Praveen, the person who was stated to be missing as per the application. It has further claimed that on 26^th of November, 2020 supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded wherein he named Amit, Karambir, Munesh (present petitioner) as well as Umesh and Subhash as perpetrators of the crime. As per further case of the prosecution Umesh, Karambir and Anil suffered disclosure statements during interrogation admitting their crime and as per their disclosure it was Umesh Chand who fired in the head of the deceased from behind. Present petitioner who was arrested on 7^th of December, 2020 is also stated to have suffered a disclosure admitting his involvement in the commission of crime and it is further claimed that on his demarcation motorcycle bearing No.HR51-AS-6331 which was used in the commission of the crime and an empty cartridge were recovered.

¶19

On being asked, State Counsel submits that the empty cartridge was recovered from the place of occurrence behind the pyau . He is not in a

¶20

Deepak Kumar 2024.08.22 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRM-M-34547-2024

¶22

¶23

position to dispute that the same is a public place and it is a matter of debate as to whether knowledge of the same can be specifically attributed to the petitioner only.

¶24

Counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the bail plea submitting that it is a heinous crime wherein a valuable life has been lost. There is direct evidence linking the petitioner in the form of recoveries made from him. However, she does not dispute that the recovery has been made from a public place.

¶25

Custody certificate of the petitioner has been produced, which is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for more than 3 years, 8 months and 11 days and has no criminal antecedents. Charges were framed on 13^th of October, 2021 and by now only 1 out of 25 cited witness could be examined.

¶26

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through records of the case.

¶27

�� Without commenting on the merits of the case, keeping in view the incarceration already suffered by the petitioner and the fact that the investigation already stands concluded and Challan stands presented, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶28

Deepak Kumar 2024.08.22 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CRM-M-34547-2024

¶30

¶31

Needless to say that anything observed hereinabove shall not be

¶32

construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶33

August 22, 2024	(Pankaj Jain)
Dpr	Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶34

Deepak Kumar 2024.08.22 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Munesh Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munesh Kumar 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

Kehar Singh Vs Satnam Chand

Harchand Singh @ Jhand Vs State of Punjab

Himmat Singh Alias Bittu Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rajeshwar Shastri(Dass) Vs B.S Kandari and Ors.

Balkar Singh Vs Mandir Brahm Kund Trust etc.

State of Punjab Vs Joginder Singh