Ajeet Singh Vs State of Haryana

Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No. 375 dated 12.06.2 0 24, registere d against him for offences unde r Sections 148, 149, 323, 341, 4 27, 506 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Mujessar, Dis t rict Faridaba d , has filed the present 2nd petit i on under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of b ail.

¶12

Relevant facts as emerging from the documents on recor d be noticed h e reinbelow:- Present criminal proceed i ngs were initiated against the petitione r on the complaint dated 12.6.2 0 24 made by one Chanchal, wi fe of Ashok L a mba, resident of Mujessar, po i nting therein that she was ha v ing land disp u te with one Parkash Kaur an d earlier she had given a compl a int against h er on 09.06.2024 in the Poli c e Station. It is alleged tha t in

¶13

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.01 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CRM-M-19449-2025 -2-

¶15

connecti o n with the said complaint, co m plainant along with her husb a nd and chil d ren were going to Police Stati o n for compromise, but on the w ay, petitione r /accused, his son Prince, Amit and Parkash Kaur came i n a Fortuner vehicle bearing registration N o . HR-29AP-1008, one Scorpio a nd four mot o rcycles and hit their car multip l e times, due to which Wagon-R car bearing r egistration No. HR-51CC-093 4 , in which the complainant al o ng with her children were sitting and ano t her car Creta bearing registra t ion No.HR-8 7 L-4958, in which husband of t he complainant and nephew S u raj and Kapil were riding, got badly dama g ed, but somehow they manage d to come to t h e Police Station, but even in t h e Police Station also, the afore s aid accused p ersons hit their cars, in whic h the complainant and her fa m ily members were sitting, with an intent i on to commit their murder a nd thereafte r , they fled away from the spot af ter firing in the air. On the b a sis of said complaint, formal case vide FI R No. 375 dated 12.06.2024, w as registere d against him for offences unde r Sections 148, 149, 323, 341, 4 27, 506 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Mujessar, Dis t rict Faridaba d .

¶16

Petitioner filed an applicat i on for bail under Section 483 of BNSS before the learned Additional Se s sions Judge, Faridabad. The s a me came to b e dismissed vide order dated 13.01.2025. Aggrieved of which, the present p e tition has been filed for grant o f bail. 3. Learned counsel for the pe t itioner submits that petitioner has been fals e ly implicated in the present c ase. Infact, at the time of alle g ed incident, p etitioner was visiting Police Station on the request of Balwi n der Singh to explore the possibility of amic a ble settlement of property dis p ute between h im and the complainant party . Efforts did not bear the des i red

¶17

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.01 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-19449-2025 -3-

¶19

results. R ather, complainant party in collusion with police officials m an handled p etitioner and others accompa n ying him. In this assault, he (P) suffered s ix injuries as is apparent from M LR dated 12.6.2024 (Annexur e P- 2). Taki n g his submissions further, lear n ed counsel contends that instea d of initiating action against complainant p arty, frivolous case was fra m ed against p e titioner and his family memb e rs. Falsity of the case set up by complain a nt party is apparent from the f act that no firing as alleged in the complain t had ever taken place, for no e m pty cartridges or fire marks w ere found at t he spot. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this C o urt to the M L Rs of the complainant party ( A nnexures P-6 to P-8), in suppor t of his subm i ssion that none of the three in j ured suffered any serious inju r ies, thus, acc o rding to him, no offence under S ection 307 of Indian Penal Co d e is made out. It is further submission of le a rned counsel for the petitioner t hat since the dismissal of the first petition fo r grant of bail, filed by petiti o ner before th i s Court vide CRM-M-39056-2 0 24, on 27.9.2024 (Annexure P- 1 1), complain a nt has been examined, but the completion of trial is likely to t ake sometime , for remaining witnesses have t ill date not put in their appeara n ce before le a rned trial Court. Towards the end, learned counsel contends t hat petitione r , who has been in custody s ince 12.6.2024 and who him s elf suffered i njuries, deserves a lenient vie w to be taken in his favour, for his further i n carceration would not serve any useful purpose as also t hat petitione r would abide by stringent co n ditions, so imposed by this C o urt while all o wing this petition. 4. In the status report by way o f affidavit of Varun Dahiya, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crim e , Faridabad, apart from mentio n ing factual a s pects leading to the lodging of the FIR, petition has been opp o sed

¶20

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.01 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRM-M-19449-2025 -4-

¶22

on the gr o und that petitioner along with other accused with a pre-medi a ted mind hit into the vehicle of the complainant party, as a result ther e of, complain a nt and two other persons suff e red multiple injuries. Petition has also been opposed on the ground that petitioner is a person of question a ble past ante c edents and in case the conces s ion of bail is granted to him, the likelihoo d of his fleeing from the proces s of justice by not appearing in the Court, ov e r-awing complainant and other related witnesses is quite high.

¶23

Learned counsel for the c omplainant has also veheme n tly opposed t he request for grant of bail o n the ground that the wife of the petitione r misbehaved with complainan t on 20.10.2025 and threatene d to involve t h e husband of complainant in a false case of sexual assault. T h us, the subm i ssion of learned counsel for th e complainant is that if petition e r is extended the concession of bail, he is m ost likely to misuse the same a nd overawe the remaining injured witnes s es, who have till date not been examine d . Prayer for dismissal of the pet i tion has been made. 5. I have heard learned couns e l for the parties and have per u sed the docu m ents on record. 6. In the case of Rup Bahadur Magar @ Sanki @ Rabin Vs. State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No.4144 of 2024 decided on 04.10.20 2 4, in a case under Sections 394, 395, 397, 307 read with 120- B of IPC, Ho n ’ble Supreme Court granted b a il to the accused considering l o ng incarcera t ion undergone by him of 2 year s and 9 months.

¶24

In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (2024) 9 SCC 813 , the Supreme Court w h ile granting b ail to accused for 04 years in paragraph Nos.16 and 17 hel d as under:-

¶25

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.01 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CRM-M-19449-2025

¶27

-5-

¶28

“16. Criminals are not bor n but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, ne v er write off any criminal as bey o nd redemption. This humanist f undamental is often missed w h en dealing with delinquents, ju v enile and adult. Indeed, every s a int has a past and every si n ner a future. When a crim e is committed, a variety of fac t ors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social a nd economic, may be, the re s ult of value erosion or pare n tal neglect; may be, because o f the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contra s ted with indigence or other priv a tions.

¶29

17. If the State or any p rosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wh e rewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an a c cused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the Stat e or any other prosecuting agen c y should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the c rime committed is serious. Art i cle 21 of the Constitution appli e s irrespective of the nature of the crime.”

¶30

Recently, a Co-ordinate B e nch of this Court in Neelkamal Singh Alias Billa Vs. State of Punjab p assed in CRM-M-39765-2024 has held that although an accused may h a ve past criminal antecedents but nonethel e ss if the incarceration perio d is long, he is entitled for the concessi o n of bail.

¶31

“Therefore, to elucidate fur t her, this Court is conscious o f the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy t r ial

¶32

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.01 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

CRM-M-19449-2025

¶34

-6-

¶35

is a part of reasonable, fair a nd just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitutio n of India. This constitutional r i ght cannot be denied to the acc u sed as is the mandate of the A p ex court in “ Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna”, (1980) 1 SCC 98 . Bes i des this, reference can be drawn upon that pre-conviction perio d of the under-trials should be a s short as possible keeping in view the nature of accusation an d the severity of punishment in c ase of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reason a ble apprehension of tampering w ith the witness or apprehensio n of threat to the complainant. A s far as the pendency of other c a ses and involvement of the peti t ioner in other cases is concer n ed, reliance can be placed upon the order of this Court rendere d in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled a s “ Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs.

¶36

State of Punjab ” decide d on 02.03.2023, wherein, w h ile referring Article 21 of the C onstitution of India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the t ime of granting bail, the crim i nal antecedents of the petitione r are to be looked into but at the same time it is equally tru e that the appreciation of evidence during the course of trial ha s to be looked into with referenc e to the evidence in that case a lone and not with respect to the evidence in the other pendi n g cases. In such eventuality, s t rict adherence to the rule of de n ial of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions i n all probability would land the petitioner in a situation of d e nial of concession of bail.”

¶37

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.01 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

CRM-M-19449-2025 -7-

¶39

Factual aspects of the case l e ading to the registration of the F IR have bee n noticed hereinabove. Though as per petitioner, the incident did not occur in the manner as portrayed in t h e complaint, but that is a matte r to be adjud i cated upon only when the par t ies lead their respective evide n ce. Without c ommenting on the merits of t h e case, the fact that petitioner has been in c u stody since 12.6.2024, as also that complainant injured has been examine d , further incarceration of petiti o ner would not only be violativ e of his rights under Article 21 of the Cons t itution of India, including righ t to speedy tr i al but would also be against the principle of “Bail is a general r ule and inca r ceration is an exception” as h eld by Hon’ble Supreme Cour t in Dataram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131.

¶40

Submission of learned cou n sel for the complainant that si n ce the wife of the petitioner threatened t h e husband of the complainan t to involve h im in a false case of sexual as s ault, cannot in the absence of a ny supportin g material, be a ground at this s tage to deny the concession of b ail to the pe t itioner. Learned counsel for t h e petitioner undertakes that till the examinat i on of two injured witnesses, p etitioner would not enter Dis t rict Faridaba d and would not misuse the conc e ssion of bail. 8. Resultantly, petitioner is gr a nted the concession of bail sub j ect to his f u rnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned t rial Court/Du t y Magistrate concerned. Th e petitioner shall abide by the followin g conditions:-

¶41

(i) The petitioner will n o t tamper with the evidence du r ing the trial.

¶42

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.01 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶43

CRM-M-19449-2025 -8-

¶44

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶45

(iii) The petitioner shall n ot leave the country without p r ior permission of the trial Court .

¶46

(iv) The petitioner shall n o t commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an a c cused, or for commission of w h ich he is suspected of.

¶47

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coe r ce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dis s uade him/her from disclosing s u ch facts to the Court or to an y police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

¶48

(vi) The petitioner shall n o t in any manner misuse his libe r ty. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mo b ile number to the Trial Court f orthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of t h e trial and in case for any rea s on, the petitioner seeks to cha n ge any of the aforesaid, the s a me shall be done only with pr i or intimation to the learned Tr ial Court, stating the reason for the same. (viii) The petitioner will ap p ear before the trial Court on e a ch and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific orde r of Court.

¶49

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any o t her condition, as deemed a p propriate while releasing the petitioner.

¶50

Accordingly, the present pet i tion is allowed and it is made c l ear that in ca s e there is any breach of the afo r esaid conditions, the State shal l be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail a s granted to the petitioner by t his order.

¶51