Allowed

Kamlesh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Dec 2024CRM-M/34585/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail sought in a murder FIR where the petitioner, not named in the FIR, was nominated on her husband's disclosure that she conducted recce of the area. In custody about 11 months with charges not yet framed and 25 witnesses cited, the court held further detention pointless and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

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

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

¶1

¶2

CRM-M-34585-2024 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-34585-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.12.2024

¶5

Kamlesh ...Petitioner

Versus

State of H aryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

¶10

Present: Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advo c ate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, DAG, H aryana.

¶12

Mr. Rajnish K. Gupta, Advo c ate, for the complainant.

¶13

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Section/s
443	11.12.2023	Barauda, Distri ct	302, 404, 120-B, 34 IPC
		Sonipat	and25 oftheArmsAct

¶14

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)

¶15

Reply fil e d by way of affidavit of Shri R ishikant, ACP, Gohana, Distric t Sonipat i s taken on record.

¶16

The petit i oner seeks grant of regular b a il in respect of aforementione d FIR.

¶17

The matt e r pertains to the murder of R aj esh. The FIR in question wa s lodged at the instance of Manjeet son of deceased Rajesh. It is the cas e of prosec u tion that petitioner’s father Ra j esh had contested the election s for the p ost of Sarpanch and had wo n the same. Dalbir, who ha d previousl y contested the elections, had been murdered and due to whic h

¶18

VIMAL KUMAR 2024.12.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

¶20

CRM-M-34585-2024 (O&M)

¶21

the entir e ‘ Biraagi ’ community was h olding a grudge against th e complain a nt’s father and in fact it is Raj e sh son of Basti Ram along wit h his two s ons and along with 3 sons of Dalbir, who had murdered hi s father Ra j esh s/o Raghbir.

¶22

Learned c ounsel for the petitioner submit t ed that the petitioner has falsel y been im p licated in the present case o n account of the fact that sh e happens to be wife of Rajesh son of Basti Ram and as a matter of fact sh e is nowhe r e named in the FIR, but came t o be nominated subsequently o n the basis of disclosure statement made by her husband Rajesh son o f Basti Ra m , wherein he disclosed that hi s wife had committed ‘ recce ’ o f the area in question. Learned coun s el further submitted that th e petitione r , who has a clean record, as on date has been behind bars sinc e the last a b out 11 months and as such, de s erves the concession of regula r bail.

¶23

Opposin g the petition, learned State cou n sel assisted by learned counse l represent i ng the complainant submitted t h at admittedly it is a case wher e there ha d been rivalry amongst the t w o families i.e. the family o f deceased Rajesh and also the family of Dalbir and that since th e petitione r had actively participated in c o nducted ‘ recce ’ of the area an d thus faci l itated the commission of cr i me, her complicity is clearl y evident. L earned State counsel has, how e ver, informed that the petitione r as on dat e has been behind bars since the last about 10 months & 28 day s and that s he is not involved in any other case. It has also been informe d that char g es are yet to be framed and as m any as 25 PWs have been cited.

¶24

This Cou r t has considered rival submissi o ns.

¶25

VIMAL KUMAR 2024.12.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

¶27

CRM-M-34585-2024 (O&M)

¶28

Admitted l y, it is a case where the petitio n er is nowhere named in the FI R and as a m atter of fact, there is no eye-w i tness to the alleged occurrence . The peti t ioner came to be nominated on the basis of a disclosur e statemen t made by co-accused, which is to the effect that she conducte d the ‘ recc e ’ of the area. The petitioner, w ho is a lady, has a clean recor d and has b een behind bars since the last a bout 11 months. The trial ha s not even c ommenced till date inasmuch a s charges have not been framed . Under th e se circumstances, further dete n tion of the petitioner will no t serve an y useful purpose as the conclus i on of trial will take some tim e inasmuc h as 25 PWs have been cited. The petition, as such, is accepte d and the p etitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on he r furnishin g bail bonds/surety bonds to t he satisfaction of learned tria l Court/Ch i ef Judicial Magistrate/Duty Ma g istrate concerned.

¶29

16.12.2024 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL) Vimal JUDGE

¶30

Whether speaking/reason e d: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶31

VIMAL KUMAR 2024.12.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kamlesh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh 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

M/S Tarun Enterprises and Anr. Vs Joginderpal Singh

Bir Bhan and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Another

Kultar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harwinder Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Shailender Vs State of Haryana

Uttam Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others