Aakash alias Ankur v. State of Haryana
Case Details
CRM-M-14305-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 CRM-M-14305-2025 Reserved on: 01.05.2025 Pronounced on: 16.05.2025 Aakash alias Ankur ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present:
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen K. Sheoran, DAG, Haryana. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 53 18.01.2019 Old Industrial 302 & 34 IPC and 25/54 of Panipat, District Arms Act Panipat 1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above came before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail. 2. In paragraph 31 of the bail petition, petitioner declares that one more case is pending against him, however as per paragraph 5 of the status report dated 26.04.2025, the accused has four more pending cases, which are as follows:- Date 2019 Offenses 307, 392, 397, 120B IPC and 25 of Arms Act 22.01.2019 115, 379, 412, 420, 25 IPC and 25,54, 59 of Arms Act Police Station Murthal, Sonipat Sadar, Charkhi Dadri 14.07.2020 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act Asaudha, District 2020 174A IPC Jhajjar Asauda, Jhajjar Sr. No. FIR No. 2 1 24 233 237 2 3 4 3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report, which reads as follows: ANJU RANI 2025.05.16 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh “That on 18.01.2019 complainant Raj Rani wife of Rajender Singh gave a complaint to the police stating therein that her son Nitin, aged about 20 1 CRM-M-14305-2025 2 years, unmarried had quarreled with Tinku, Meeta, Bittu Langra, resident of Kabri, Panipat. The aforesaid boys and their assailants used to threaten Nitin. They had fear of the life of Nitin, she used to keep Nitin at the house. Her son Nitin and his friend Ankush son of Rajender were present in their house. At about 12:00 O'clok at night, Neeraj alias Chotala called out his son Nitin, outside where some other persons were sitting in the white Car, who started firing on his son indiscriminately. Her son was followed by Ankush, who saved his life. After killing his son, the aforesaid persons fled away from the spot.” 4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. 5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. REASONING: 6. Petitioner seeks bail on parity with co-accused, whose bail orders are annexed as Annexures P-3, P-4, P-5 & P-7. Firstly petitioner seeks bail on parity with Samundar Singh. Perusal of the order dated 21.07.2020 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-17325-2020, where co-accused Samunder Singh was granted bail, shows that he was granted bail at the time of Covid pandemic and observation of the Courts at that time of Covid was altogether different, as such, petitioner is not entitled to bail with Samunder Singh. Secondly, petitioner seeks bail on parity with Nikhil @ Tinku, who was granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.10.2021 passed in CRM-M-15439-2021. Perusal of the said order reveals that Nikhil was granted bail because petitioner (Nikhil), Mitta and one Bittu Langra had verbal altercation with the deceased prior to two days of the incident and it was the motive of petitioner, however Mitta and Bittu Langra were exonerated on being found innocent. A perusal of the order reveals that the court had granted bail to Nikhil by analysing the evidence against him, as such petitioner is not entitled to bail on parity with Nikhil because as per ballistic expert, weapon recovered from the said Nikhil found no connection with the bullet recovered from the deceased body or place of occurrence. Thirdly petitioner seeks bail on parity with Rahul, who was granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.03.2022 passed in CRM-M-48874-2021. The arguments for Rahul were that eyewitness-Ankush in his deposition stated that Rahul was not the person who had fired upon the deceased and on such ground the Court had granted bail to Rahul. However, petitioner claims bail on parity but failed to annex the deposition of witnesses with the case file to substantiate his case on parity, as such in the absence of copy of deposition of witnesses, this Court cannot accept plea of parity. Here, it would be appropriate to refer to para 4 of the reply which reads as follows:- ANJU RANI 2025.05.16 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-14305-2025 3 “4. That the role of the petitioner is that he alongwith co-accused Ajit, co- accused Neeraj Chautala, co-accused Rahul Pandit and co-accused Nikhil @ Tinku conspired to commit murder of deceased Nitin. In pursuance of their conspiracy, they all went near to the house of the deceased Nitin. Neeraj @ Chautala called Nitin outside his house by making whats app call to him. When he arrived, Co-accused Neeraj Chautala, Rahul Pandit, Nikhil and the petitioner all fired upon the deceased Nitin with their respective country made pistols. Deceased Nitin died on the spot because of gun shot injuries caused to him. The petitioner has also confessed to his role in crime in his disclosure statement, Annexure R-6.” 7. Thus, it is clear that the firing was attributed to Neeraj Chautala, Rahul Pandit, and Nikhil @ Tinku and the petitioner-Aakash. Thus, petitioner was attributed fire injury, as such he is not entitled to bail. Petitioner’s next ground for parity is with Ajit who was granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.06.2022 passed in CRM-M-24281-2022. Perusal of the said order reveals that the ground of bail to Ajit was on the same ground as was given to co-accused and also the reason that he was not attributed any injury but in this case, it is mentioned in the reply that petitioner was explicitly attributed gun shot injuries, thus petitioner is not entitled to bail with Ajit as well. 8. A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points towards the petitioner’s involvement and does not make out a case for bail. The impact of crime would not justify bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so. 9. The petitioner’s custody of around 02 years & 09 months cannot be termed prolonged, given the minimum sentence prescribed for the offense, which is life imprisonment. 10. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 11.
Decision
Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 16.05.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: ANJU RANI 2025.05.16 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 3