Sunil v. State of Haryana

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta,on Sec,ons 257 18.03.2021 Kharkhoda, Disti. 148, 302, 452, 149 & 120-B IPC & 25, 27 Sonipat & 59 of Arms Act

¶1The pe!!oner incarcerated in the FIR cap!oned above had come up before this Court under Sec!on 483 of Bhara!ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

¶2Reply dated 23.04.2025 and custody cer!ficate filed by the State counsel are taken on record.

¶3As per paragraph 9 of the bail pe!!on and as per paragraph 16(i) of the reply, the accused has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Offenses Police Sta,on

¶1191 18.03.2021 307, 120-B IPC, City Sonipat 25/54/59 of Arms Act

¶4The facts and allega!ons are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: "2. That briefly statng the facts involved in the instant case are that on

18.03.2021, actng upon an informaton that Krishan son of Ra#an Singh, resident of village Barona, District Sonipat, has been shot dead in village Barona, District Sonipat, police officials rushed to the spot, where wife of deceased Krishan namely Smt. Anita presented a complaint, statng JYOTI therein that she has two sons namely Dinesh and Ajay @ Bi#u, who is order/judgment. 1 confined in jail in murder case. She further stated that today i.e. on

18.03.2021, at about 1.00 p.m, she and her husband Krishan were present at their house, when they heard voice from the gate of their house "Tau-Tau", on which her husband opened the gate and found 8-10 persons outside the gate of their house and they abruptly entered their house and fired upon her husband. The complainant further stated that when her husband ran towards the room from the gate, all the 8-10 persons chased him and fired shots at her husband and the bullets hit the shoulders, stomach, chest etc, of her husband. The complainant raised suspicion that due to previous enmity with one Muniya, who is their co-villager, said Muniya alongwith his companions, his brother Barjesh, friends Ram Karan Baiyanpur, Naresh, Jasbir, Ramesh Nayabans, Rajesh Sarkari, Neetu Khanda, Pona Madina, Ashish, Vicky Chitana, Smt. Parvinder Kaur wife of late Shri Satyawan, Sonu Malik Gandhra, Shashi Parkash Advocate Sonipat, Mahesh posted in Haryana Police, Smt. Aart wife of Sonu Malik, mother of Muniya, Anand Gandhra in collusion with each other, have got murdered her husband by firing multple gunshots by 8-10 persons. She further stated that about three months ago, Sonu Malik and Mahesh, employed in Haryana Police had extended threat to her for dire consequences for her family. With these allegatons, the complainant sought for legal acton against the culprits. On the basis of above complaint, instant FIR was registered and investgaton was set into moton."

¶5The pe!!oner seeks bail on the ground of parity with co-accused, namely, Amit, to whom this Court has granted bail by passing order dated 14.01.2025 in CRM-M-53655-2024 (Annexure P-9). He further submits that star witness of prosecu!on Anita turned hos!le.

¶6Counsel for the pe!!oner submits that he would have no objec!on in case any stringent condi!ons this Court might put upon the pe!!oner including surrender of fire arms, and in case, pe!!oner repeats the offence, where the sentence is prescribed more than 03 years, the State shall file an applica!on for cancella!on of bail. He further contends that further pre-trial incarcera!on would cause an irreversible injus!ce to the pe!!oner and his family.

¶7The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

¶8It would be appropriate to refer to the following por!ons of the reply, which read order/judgment. 2 as follows: "15. That as far as the role of pettoner in the above mentoned crime is concerned, in this regard, it is submi#ed that present case is an organized crime and in executon of the conspiracy hatched by co-accused Ram Karan with pettoner/accused Sunil and other co-accused to commit the above mentoned crime, 18.03.2021, the persons had gathered at the plot of co-accused Ram Karan and thereaBer, co-accused Krishan @ Monu etc. had gone to the house of deceased Krishan. ABer reaching the house of deceased Krishan, co-accused had shot dead deceased Krishan and at that tme, pettoner/accused Sunil along with co-accused Ram Karan and Priyavart @ Foji were also present near village Barona, District Sonipat with a view to help the other co-accused, who had gone to the house of deceased for commiCng murder of deceased Krishan and aBer the occurrence, pettoner/accused Sunil along with other co-accused had gone to Delhi. All these facts have also been admi#ed by pettoner in his disclosure statement. In this manner, pettoner had actvely partcipated in the above mentoned crime. The case is pending for prosecuton evidence and if enlarged on bail, pettoner can tamper with the prosecuton evidence by influencing prosecuton witnesses and can also hamper the trial by absconding from the process of law. Merely on the basis of longevity of incarceraton, pettoner is not enttled to seek the concession of bail as a ma#er of right. Thus, keeping in view the seriousness of offence, role of pettoner in commiCng the crime, punishment provided and antecedents of pettoner, he is not enttled to the relief of bail as claimed for." REASONING:

¶9Name of the pe!!oner cropped up in disclosure statement, co-accused Amit, who was at the spot but not atiributed any injury has already been granted bail and case of the pe!!oner is on betier foo!ng, moreover, prosecu!on star witness No.2, namely, Anita was examined and she was declared hos!le, as such, no ground is made out to deny bail to the pe!!oner.

¶10There 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. As per paragraph 7 of the bail pe!!on, the pe!!oner has been in custody since 20.04.2021. As per the custody cer!ficate dated 26.04.2025, the pe!!oner's total custody in this FIR is 04 years and 07 days. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz JYOTI pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allega!ons, and order/judgment. 3 the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jus fiability for further pre-trial incarcera on at this stage.

¶11Without commen ng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons men oned above, the pe

oner makes a case for bail.

¶12Given 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.

¶13While furnishing a personal bond, the pe

oner shall men on the following personal iden fica on details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the aties ng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶14This order is subject to the pe

oner's complying with the following terms.

¶15The 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.

¶16Given 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 atiempt 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 Bhati v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.

¶17Given the background of allega ons against the pe

oner, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, complainant/vic m and incapacita the accused would be one of the primary op ons un l the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquitial. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restric on is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a 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 fiNeen days from today and inform the Inves gator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the pe

oner shall be en tled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquitial in this case, provided it is otherwise permissible under 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.

¶18The condi ons men oned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also to block the menace of drug abuse. 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."

¶19In case the Inves gator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Sta on arraigns another sec on of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new sec on prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sec ons men oned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added sec on(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sec ons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sec ons men oned above; then, in that case, the Inves gator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the pe

oner no ce of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

¶20This bail is condi onal, and the founda onal condi on is that if the pe

oner

indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an applica on for cancella on of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.

¶21Any observa on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶22A 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 atiest it to be a true copy. If the aties 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 aties ng bonds.

¶23Pe,,on allowed in terms men oned above. All pending applica ons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

28.04.2025 Jyo -II

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 263 CRM-M-8828-2025 Date of Decision: 28.04.2025 Sunil ...Pe!!oner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate, for the pe!!oner. Mr. Naveen Kumar Sheoran, D.A.G., Haryana. ****