Ravi Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No. 166 dated 03.08.2 0 22, registere d against him for commission o f offences under Sections 147, 1 49, 302 of In d ian Penal Code, at Police Stati o n Odhan (Sirsa), District Sirsa, has filed the p resent petition under Section 4 8 3 of BNSS for grant of bail.

¶11

Relevant facts as emerging from the documents on recor d be noticed h e reinbelow:-

¶12

Proceedings in the present c ase were initiated on the basi s of complain t lodged by Pawan Kumar, son of Dharam Singh, alleging the r ein that his y ounger brother Sandeep, ag e d about 25 years, is mason by professio n . On 03.08.2022, the complain a nt received two missed calls on his mobile p h one at about 4.00 AM from th e phone of his brother. Therea f ter, when the complainant tried to call his br o ther Sandeep, his brother’s ph o ne was ‘swi t ched off’. After about 10-15 m i nutes, complainant received a c all from his b rother Sandeep, who asked th e complainant to let him talk to his

¶13

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CRM-M-32998-2025 -2-

¶15

mother w hich the complainant arrange d . However, complainant’s mo t her handed o v er the phone to him (c), when he heard voice of unknown per s on on the phone saying that his brother Sa n deep is in their custody at Vill a ge Khuiyan N epalpur and the said unknow n persons asked him to come to the said vill ag e along with 4-5 persons for taking back his brother. Sho r tly, thereafte r , another phone call was re c eived by him from the unkn o wn person, w ho told him and his brother S andeep had come to their h o use situated a t Village Khuiyan Nepalpur a n d had committed a wrongful a ct. The said p erson again asked him (c) to c o me there failing which they w o uld kill his b r other. Complainant accompanied by his father Dharam Sing h as well as his uncles Ram Kishan and Ra m Kumar went to Village Khui y an Nepalpur , where they came to know that Sandeep had come to the hous e of Mani Ra m during night and had been ca u ght red handed in the compan y of Mani Ra m ’s mother, namely, Parveen K a ur in a compromising position a nd that Ma n i Ram along with other co-a c cused had murdered Sandeep by inflicting injuries with sticks, belt, fist an d kick blows.

¶16

It is further the case of pr o secution that co-accused Parveen Kaur up o n having been caught red han d ed had sided with co-accused a nd as such, w as a party to the offence. It i s further an admitted fact that the name of p etitioner cropped up in the d isclosure statement of co-acc u sed Vikram a l ias Vicky and Sandeep, both o f whom have since been granted the concessi o n of bail by the Coordinate Be n ch of this Court vide orders d a ted 31.7.202 5 and 11.12.2024 passed in C RM-M-64576-2024 and CRM - M40469-2024, respectively.

¶17

Petitioner moved an applica t ion for grant of bail before lear n ed Addition a l Sessions Judge, Sirsa, who i n terms of order dated 11.06.2 0 25,

¶18

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-32998-2025 -3-

¶20

dismisse d the said application. Aggrie v ed of which, present petition has been file d for grant of bail.

¶21

Learned counsel for the pe t itioner submits that petitioner has been fals e ly arrayed as an accused in th e present case only on the basi s of disclosur e statement of other co-accuse d , who has since been granted the concessi o n of bail by this Court vide ord e r dated 6.11.2025 passed in C R M- M-18407 - 2025. Learned counsel further submits that assuming for the sake of argum e nts, the story put forth by the p rosecution is taken to be true a t its face valu e (though not admitted), there w as no occasion/motive for pre s ent petitione r to murder the deceased (you n ger brother of complainant Pa w an Kumar). It is also the submission of lea r ned counsel that investigations q ua petitione r , who was arrested on 26.8. 2 024, are complete, (nothing w as recovere d in pursuance of his disclosure s tatement) as challan has been fi l ed, charge w as framed on 22.11.2022, but the likelihood of the trial b e ing complete d in the near future is quit e remote. Thus, his (P) fur t her incarcera t ion would not serve any useful p urpose as the same would not o nly be violat i ve of his rights under Articl e 21 of the Constitution of In d ia, including right to speedy trial but wou l d also be against the principl e of “Bail is a general rule and incarcera t ion is an exception” as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dataram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131. Prayer for allowing the peti t ion has been m ade.

¶22

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the submissi o ns raised by learned counse l for the petitioner, submits t hat petitione r was a member of unlawful assembly which unleashed br u tal attack o n the deceased, who as a cons e quence thereof died. In vie w of

¶23

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-M-32998-2025 -4-

¶25

gravity a n d seriousness of offence, it has been prayed that no case for g r ant of bail to petitioner is made out.

¶26

Heard learned counsel f o r the parties and perused the documen t s on record.

¶27

Factual aspects of the case l e ading to the registration of the F IR have alre a dy been noticed in para 2 of t h e order. It is not disputed that coaccused V ikram alias Vicky and Sande e p who were specifically name d in the FIR a nd specific roles had been a s signed to them, have since been granted t h e concession of bail by the C o ordinate Bench of this Court v ide orders da t ed 31.7.2025 and 11.12.2024 p assed in CRM-M-64576-2024 a nd CRM-M- 4 0469-2024, respectively.

¶28

In view of the submissions a dvanced by learned counsel for the petitione r , but without commenting furth e r on the merits of the case, the f act that petit i oner has been in custody since 26.08.2024, investigations qua h im are complete, for challan has already be e n filed, as also taking note of the fact that o ut of 22 prosecution witnesses , none has been examined till date, thus, pos s ibility of completion of trial i n the near future is quite rem o te, lenient vi e w is taken in favour of petitio n er who is not involved in any o t her criminal case, by extending him co n cession of bail, for his fur t her incarcera t ion would not only be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitut i on of India, including right t o speedy trial but would also be against t h e principle of “ Bail is a gen e ral rule and incarceration is an exception ” as held by Hon’ble Supreme C ourt in Dataram’s case (supra). 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

¶29

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRM-M-32998-2025 -5-

¶31

Court/Du t y Magistrate concerned. Th e petitioner shall abide by the followin g conditions:-

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

(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. (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.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

CRM-M-32998-2025 -6-

¶40

at liberty to seek cancellation of bail a s granted to the petitioner by t his order.

¶41

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein ar e limited for the purpose of pre s ent proceedings and would no t be construe d as an opinion on the merits of t he case and the trial would proceed independ e ntly of the aforesaid observatio n s.

¶42

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) 06.11.20 2 5 JUDGE gbs Whether Speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶43

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ravi Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lovish Vs State of Haryana

Sat Narayan @ Shankar @ Satyanarayan Vs State of Haryana

S.C Chopra (Subhash Chander Chopra) Vs Amarjit Singh

Satbir Singh Vs Jai Parkash

Rajinder Singh Vs Mam Raj

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Haryana