Umesh v. State of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Dat !" D #$%$!&' 2()10)2024 UMESH )) P t$t$!& * +%) STATE OF HARYANA ))R %,!&- &t CORAM' HON.B/E MR) JU0TICE 0UMEET GOE/ Present: Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana. ... 0UMEET GOE/ 1 J) (O*a2) The instant petition has been filed on 30.09.2024 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for grant of regular bail. As per the judgment rendered by this Court titled 'Abhishek Jain Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh and another' (CRM-M-318 8-! !"# ! !"$%%C 8&'8", the instant petition is not maintainable under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973. However, keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case especially that the instant petition pertains to regular bail, the instant petition is directed to be considered as a petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶1Present petition has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0132 dated 10.03.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 4 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 (added later on as per the challan) at Police Station Kotwali, District Faridabad.Jasmine Kaur

¶2The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out by the petitioner in the present petition) is as follows:< "To the SHO, It is submitted that I, Mahender Sharma son of Late Sh. Harish Sharma, am resident of 2-L-28 NIT Faridabad. I am workin in trans!ort "om!an#. I am $i%in se!arate from m# wife. M# wife Tosha$i Sharma Nawada is residin in &ttam Na ar. M# dau hter 'idhima Sharma ('idhima Sharma) is stud#in in *+,ST+ S"hoo$ Se"tor-28 in -2th "$ass, whose a e is -. #ears. M# dau hter toda# in the e%enin on /0./1.2/22 at about 3.// 4m had one for tuition at 2-H-.- with her 5habhi and thereafter at about 6.// 4M I had one to brin m# dau hter from tuition from house No. 2H-.- NIT Faridabad, then Tuition Tea"her of 'idhima Sharma said that toda# 'idhima Sharma had not "ome for tuition. That m# dau hter 2/-23 da#s a o a$so without te$$in an#thin had one in the ni ht at 2.1/ a.m. and then in the mornin at ..1/ a.m. "ame under into7i"ation. I en8uired from m# dau hter that with whom she had one, then she said that she is under de!ression. Toda# a ain m# dau hter without te$$in had one outside the tuition, with re ard to whi"h I had i%en information on --2 that m# dau hter is missin sin"e e%enin . That at m# own $e%e$ I was sear"hin her. 4$ease sear"h m# dau hter and ma# be handed o%er to me.9

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 29.04.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that nothing inculpatory has come against the petitioner in the FIR as also the statement made by the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 12.03.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that, assuming ar uendo, the version of the prosecution is taken to be correct, the only role attributed to the petitioner (in the statement made under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the victim) is that he has abetted the main accused to commit the assault. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. (

¶4Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.

¶5I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

¶6The petitioner was arrested on 29.04.2024 whereinafter investigation was carried out & challan was presented on 28.06.2024. Total 26 prosecution witnesses have been cited and culmination of the trial, indubitably, will take its own time. The rival contention of the learned counsel for the parties; as to whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question; the exact role attributed to the petitioner and evidence in support thereof & the effect of the petitioner's name not figuring specifically in the FIR and also the statement made by the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.3 shall be gone into during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. As per the custody certificate dated 22.10.2024 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 05 months and 24 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case. Suffice to say further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶7In view of totality of factual matrix of the present case, the instant petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular 2024.10.23 15:56 bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:<

(i) The petitioner shall not mis<use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell<phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

¶8In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

¶9Ordered accordingly.

¶10Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶11Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. 2()10)2024 (0UMEET GOE/) :asmine ;aur JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes No