Allowed

Amit v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Nov 2024CRM-M/34839/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed petition for regular bail under Section 439 CrPC. Court imposed stringent conditions forbidding entry into victim's property and mandatory surrender of firearms within fifteen days, citing precedents.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; accused released on bail subject to stringent conditions including prohibition of entering victim's property and surrender of weapons within 15 days.

Amit Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRM-M-34839-2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-34839-2024 Reserved on: 06.11.2024 Pronounced on: 18.11.2024

Amit

...Pe��oner

Versus

State of Haryana …Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶9

Present: Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, for the pe��oner.

¶10

Mr. Viney Phogat, DAG, Haryana.

¶11

¶12

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶13

FIR No.	Dated	Police Sta1on	Sec1ons
125	27.03.2024	Kheripul, Faridabad	307, 332, 353, 186, 379, 34 IPC and
			Sec�on 21 of MiningAct

¶14

The pe��oner incarcerated in the FIR cap�oned above had come up before this Court under Sec�on 439 CrPC, 1973, seeking regular bail.

¶15

In paragraph 7 of the bail pe��on and as per paragraph 9 of reply, the accused has

¶16

the following criminal antecedents:

¶17

Sr. No.	FIR No.	Dated	Offenses	Police Sta1on
1.	34	01.04.2017	148,149,323,342,506 IPC	Tigaon,Dis6. Faridabad
2.	259	25.12.2018	188,279,336,379 IPC	Tigaon,Dis6. Faridabad
3.	229	10.09.2019	279, 379, 188, 186, 353, 336,120-B IPC	Tigaon, Dis6. Faridabad
4.	144	05.09.2020	186, 188, 379, 332, 353, 307,34 IPC	Tigaon, Dis6. Faridabad
5.	118	27.03.2024	379,34 IPC	Central Faridabad
6.	215	04.08.2022	25/54/59 of Arms Act	Tigaon,Dis6. Faridabad
7.	96	2017	147,148,323,452,506 IPC	Tigaon,Dis6. Faridabad
8.	82	02.04.2022	379 IPC and Sec�on 21 of the MiningAct	Knowledge Park, UP

¶18

The facts and allega�ons are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:

¶19

“3. That the facts, which led to file the present pe��on are that the

¶20

JYOTI 2024.11.18 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶21

¶22

CRM-M-34839-2024

¶23

complainant HC Neeraj alleging that on 27.03.2024 he along with HC Ashok Kumar, HC Bijender Singh and outsource vehicle driver were present for detec�ng the) of mining duty, meanwhile at 5.00 AM, they received a secret informa�on that one Tata Hywa loaded with Yamuna sand will come from Bhupani side and one Celerio vehicle shall also come accompanying the Tata Hywa. A)er some �me, one Tata Hywa and Celerio vehicle seen coming and on the basis of suspicion, Tata Hywa was signalled to stop, but it did not stop. When police party tried to chase it, the Celerio vehicle intercepted the way of police vehicle stopping it from chasing the Hywa and threatened to kill if they did not stop and as such he helped in fleeing of Hywa. When complainant tried to stop the Hywa, Sahil was the driver of said vehicle, with the inten�on to kill him, hit the vehicle to him and due to impact he fell down on the road and sustained injuries and MLR of HC Neeraj was conducted by concerned doctor. The copy of MLR is annexed as Annexure R-1. He was given first aid by the police. As the said act of Celerio vehicle has obstructed the police officials from performing their duty and tried to kill him, a penal ac�on was prayed. On the basis of these allega�ons, present FIR was registered.”

¶24

The pe��oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi�ons and contends that further pre-trial incarcera�on would cause an irreversible injus�ce to the pe��oner and his family.

¶25

The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

¶26

Perusal of medical report, Annexure R-1 does not point towards injuries which would jus�fy further pre-trial custody.

¶27

There is sufficient primafacie evidence connec�ng the pe��oner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarcera�on should not be a replica of post-convic�on sentencing.

¶28

As per paragraph 9 of the bail pe��on, the pe��oner has been in custody since 13.05.2024. As per the custody cer�ficate dated 05.11.2024, the pe��oner’s total custody in this FIR is around six months. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pretrial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allega�ons, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jus�fiability for further pre-trial incarcera�on at this stage.

¶29

Without commen�ng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances

¶30

JYOTI 2024.11.18 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶31

¶32

CRM-M-34839-2024

¶33

peculiar to this case, and for the reasons men�oned above, the pe��oner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the �me it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

¶34

Given above, provided the pe��oner is not required in any other case, the pe��oner shall be released on bail in the FIR cap�oned above subject to furnishing bonds to the sa�sfac�on of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep�ng the surety, the concerned Court must be sa�sfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶35

While furnishing a personal bond, the pe��oner shall men�on the following personal iden�fica�on details:

¶36

1.	AADHAR number
2.	Passport number (If available) and when the a6es�ng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.
3.	Mobile number(If available)
4.	E-Mail id(If available)

¶37

This order is subject to the pe��oner’s complying with the following terms.

¶38

The pe��oner shall abide by all statutory bond condi�ons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pe��oner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.

¶39

Given the nature of the allega�ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe��oner shall not enter the property, workplace, and residence of the vic�m un�l the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial are recorded. This Court is imposing this condi�on to rule out any a6empt by the accused to incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the vic�m. Reference be made to Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Inves�ga�on, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna Bha6 v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.

¶40

Given the background of allega�ons against the pe��oner, it becomes paramount to protect the vic�m, and their family members, as well as the members of society, and incapacita�ng the accused would be one of the primary op�ons un�l the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acqui6al. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearm(s). [This restric�on is being imposed

¶41

JYOTI 2024.11.18 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶42

¶43

CRM-M-34839-2024

¶44

based on the preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanc�on]. Given the nature of the allega�ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe��oner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammuni�on, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fiMeen days from release from prison and inform the Inves�gator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the pe��oner shall be en�tled to renew and take it back in case of acqui6al in this case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Restric�ng firearms would ins�ll confidence in the vic�m(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repea�ng the offense.

¶45

The condi�ons men�oned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Pe��on (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that “The bail condi�ons imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be propor�onal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail condi�ons must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, condi�ons that would result in the depriva�on of rights and liber�es must be eschewed.”

¶46

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

¶47

A cer�fied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pe��oner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and a6est it to be a true copy. If the a6es�ng officer wants to verify its authen�city, such an officer can also verify its authen�city and may download and use the downloaded copy for a6es�ng bonds.

¶48