Jamaluddin v. State of Haryana

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta-on Sec-ons 125 05.04.2024 Sadar Nuh, Dis,. Nuh 3/13(1) and 8/13(3) of Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 and 120-B IPC

¶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.

¶2As per paragraph 16 of the bail applica!on and as per the custody cer!ficate, the accused has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Offenses Police Sta-on

¶1333 23.06.2023 3/13(1) of HGS & GS Act Sadar Nuh, Mewat

¶2433 24.08.2014 8/13(3) of HSG & GS Act Nuh, Mewat

¶3The facts and allega!ons are being taken from the translated copy of FIR annexed with the bail pe!!on as Annexure P-1, which reads as follows: "To, SHO Police Staton City Nuh Jai Hind. Today I the SI along with ESI Satbir Singh No.603/Nuh, HGH Belt No.241 and were riding on a government vehicle Bolero No.HR-27-GV-5892 driven by Bijendra Singh (Kaushal Rojgar) and while patrolling were present at Palwal T. Point Nuh that an informer gave informaton that Akhtar Ali alias Chu;an son of Abdul Salim alias Ghasita Qureshi, Jamaluddin son of Shokat, Habin son of order/judgment. 1 Haji Gunga, Mustafa son of Akhtar Ali alias Chu;an and Mubina wife of Akhtar Ali alias Chu;an residents of village Ghasera Police Staton Sadar Nuh are involved in cow slaughtering. Today also in Palla Pahar Bal a>er doing cow slaughtering, a>er cu?ng beef into small pieces Akhtar Ali alias Chu;an son of Abdul Salim alias Ghasita Qureshi residents of Ghasera Police Staton Sadar Nuh, will keep it in the room of the house and by packing in polythene would sell it. If the house of Akhtar Ali alias Chu;an son of Abdul Salim alias Ghasita Qureshi resident of Ghasera Police Staton Sadar Nuh is raided quickly then he can be apprehended alongwith the beef. On considering the informaton to be true, the passers-by were asked to join the raiding party but all the passers-by, being from the same community, went away expressing their legitmate compulsions. A>er informing the fellow employees of the informaton alongwith the informer reached at the disclosed place then the gate of the house was found to be locked from inside. Upon knocking the door all the men and one woman managed to escape through the roofs while making noise from inside the house. That upon opening the gate from inside a>er jumping from above and upon looking inside the room, about 50 Kg of beef freshly slaughtered in small & big pieces and one axe, one iron knife, one pressure of iron, one electronic weightng scale and one small steel plate were found, which were kept in a plastc bag and a separate parcel was prepared which was stamped by stamp BS. The stamp was handed over to ESI Satbir Singh for its later use. That the aforesaid recovered about 50 kg of beef was put in separate plastc bag and a parcel was prepared and was taken into police custody so as to serve as a proof on receipt of the list. On receipt of the list, signatures of the witnesses were obtained. Which the accused Akhtar Ali alias Chu;an son of Abdul Salim alias Ghasita Qureshi, Jamaluddin son of Shokat, Habin son of Haji Gunga, MusEa son of Akhtar Ali alias Chu;an and Mubina wife of Akhtar Ali alias Chu;an, resident of Ghasera Police Staton Sadar Nuh, aforesaid people together commi;ed cow slaughtering and by keeping the beef in the room of the house of Akhtar Ali alias Chu;an had commi;ed offence under Secton 3/13 (1), 8/13 (3), HGS GS ACT and 120-B IPC, upon which for the registraton of FIR it is sent to the Police Staton through ESI Satbir Singh No. 603/Nuh. A>er the registraton of FIR its number be intmated. For the further investgaton of the case, the other investgatng officer be sent at the spot. I the SI alongwith case property alongwith fellow employees are present at the spot."

¶4The pe!!oner's counsel seeks bail on the ground of parity with co-accused, namely, Akhtar Ali @ Chu,an and Habeen @ Habin, who have been granted the benefit of bail by this Court, vide order dated 15.10.2024 and 22.04.2025 passed in CRM-M-34872-2024 and CRM-M-19171-2025 (Annexures P-2 and P-3 respec!vely).

¶5The 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.

¶6The pe!!oner's counsel submits that the pe!!oner would have no objec!on whatsoever to any stringent condi!ons that this Court may impose, including that if the pe!!oner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a JYOTI sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an applica!on order/judgment. 2 to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdic!on over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discre!on, to which the pe!!oner shall have no objec!on.

¶7The State's counsel opposes bail on instruc!ons. REASONING:

¶8The co-accused have already been granted the benefit of bail by this Court vide Annexures P-2 & P-3, as such, he is also en!tled to bail.

¶9There 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 1 of the bail pe!!on, the pe!!oner has been in custody since 03.06.2025. As per the custody cer!ficate dated 27.08.2025, the pe!!oner's total custody in this FIR is 02 months and 25 days. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial 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.

¶10Without 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.

¶11Given the 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 or duty Magistrate, with or without sure!es, with a maximum bond amount not to exceed INR 10,000.

¶12Before accep!ng the surety, the concerned Court must be sa!sfied that if the accused fails to appear, the surety is capable of producing the accused. However, instead of surety, the pe!!oner may provide a fixed deposit of INR 10,000/-, with a clause that the interest shall not be accumulated in FD, either drawn from a State-owned bank or any bank listed on the Na!onal Stock Exchange and/or Bombay Stock Exchange, in favour of the "Chief Judicial Magistrate" of the concerned Sessions Division; or a fixed deposit made in the name of the pe!!oner, with similar terms and with endorsement from the banker sta!ng that the FD shall not be encumbered or redeemed without the permission of the concerned trial Court, or un!l the surety bond order/judgment. 3

¶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 a,es!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.

¶16The significant considera!on for gran!ng bail is that the Court aims to give the pe!!oner another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal ci!zen. To ensure that the pe!!oner also abides by the assurance made on the pe!!oner's behalf by not repea!ng the offence or indulging in any crime, it shall be desirable to impose the following addi!onal condi!on.

¶17This bail is condi!onal, with the founda!onal condi!on being that if the pe!!oner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State shall file an applica!on to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdic!on over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discre!on, they may cancel this bail.

¶18Any observa!on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶19In Amit Rana v. State of Haryana, CRM-18469-2025 [Decided on 05.08.2025), in CRA-D-123-2020], a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in paragraph 13, holds that "To ensure that every person in judicial custody who has been granted bail or whose sentence has been suspended gets back their liberty without any delay, it is appropriate that whenever the bail order or the orders of suspension of sentence are not immediately sent by the Registry, computer systems, or Public Prosecutor, then in such a situa!on, to facilitate the immediate restora!on of the liberty granted by any Court, the downloaded copies of all such orders, subject to verifica!on, must beJYOTI order/judgment. 4 accepted by the Court before whom the bail bonds are furnished."

¶20Pe--on allowed in terms men!oned above. All pending applica!ons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

28.08.2025 Jyo!-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 28.08.2025 Jamaluddin ...Pe!!oner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Anshul Khurana, Advocate, for the pe!!oner. Mr. Atul Gaur, A.A.G, Haryana. ****