1 1 CRM-M-24325- -2024 (O&M) 217 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB NJAB v. CRM-M-24325-2024
Case Details
1 1 CRM-M-24325- -2024 (O&M) 217 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB NJAB AND HARYANA AT GARH CHANDIGARH Aman Kotli al otli alias Aman Punjab State of Punjab versus CRM-M-24325-2024 (O&M) M) 2025 Date of decision: July 23, 2025 D ioner ….Petitioner dent ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Vishva Bahl, Advocate for th for the petitioner. Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG Punjab. SUMEET GO T GOEL, J. (ORAL) ***** 1. Present petition has been filed und de of led under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Proc l Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr. P.C il to r. P.C.’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner
Legal Reasoning
ioner in case bearing FIR No.0171 da d for dated 16.12.2020, registered for the offences p nces punishable under Section 302 of 1860 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC rt ‘IPC’), and Sections 25 and 27 of t short 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘IPC’), at Polic ritsar. t Police Station C-Division, Amritsar. 2. The case set up in the FIR in que esent in question (as set out in the present petition by the by the petitioner) is as follows:- “Statement of Sikander son o no.1086, Gali Khajoor Wali, I/s Gilw Stated that I am the resident of above a sweeper at Municipal Corporatio resident of Gali Khajoor Wali, 1/s Gilw Jhona are my neighbors and a couple house fell due to which they were no preparing to sleep and around 10:00 p on of Raj Kumar, resident of House use Gilwali Gate, Amritsar, aged 38 years. rs. as ove stated address and I am working as ation. Shankar son of Bhagwan Das as Gilwali Gate, Amritsar and his brother her eir ple of days back, the outer roof of their ere e not residing in this house. We were on :00 PM, we saw that the lights were on MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.23 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2 2 CRM-M-24325- -2024 (O&M) in the room at first floor in Shankar's h house of Shankar, Kishore and his wi to the house of Shankar, saw a man yea Buta Ram, Rakesh son of Vijay Kum unknown person in Mehndi T-shirt, Bl and there was a bullet wound on the r oozing out of the same. I left Kishore have come to inform you. I have recor kindly be taken. Before I reached, the p the r's house. After hearing the raula in the site wife Rajni, who are residing opposite n yearning. 1, along with Kishore son of of Kumar went to the spot and saw an an cks t, Black lower and blue and white socks the right side of his back and blood was as ore and rakesh near the dead body and nd ay ecorded my statement. Legal action may the person had already died.” 3.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner ioner itioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody s tody since 31.12.2020. Learned couns rther counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that d that the petitioner has been falsel R in falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Lear Learned counsel for the petitioner ha ution oner has iterated that the prosecution witnesses, nam , namely, Himanshu (PW5) and Princ stile; Prince (PW10) have turned hostile; thus, the trial i trial is not likely to culminate in con hus, in conviction of the petitioner. Thus, regular bail ha bail has been prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opp by s opposed the present petition by arguing that th that the allegations raised against the ature st the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he he does not deserve the concessio rned cession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel unsel has further submitted that the p ence the petitioner is a habitual offence and thus, he ou , he ought not to be extended the conc e e concession of regular bail as there is another FIR FIR, in which he has been convicted eeks nvicted. Learned State counsel seeks to place on re on record custody certificate dated 2 ch is ated 22.07.2025 in Court, which is taken on recor record. 5. I have heard counsel for the rival ough rival parties and have gone through the available re lable records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested after sted on 30.12.2020 whereinafter investigation w ation was carried out and challan was p Total was presented on 23.03.2021. Total MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.23 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-24325- -2024 (O&M) 3 3 30 prosecutio ecution witnesses have been cited, been , out of which, 12 have been examined and d and 04 have been given up. Indubi will Indubitably, conclusion of trial will take its own ti own time. The rival contentions raised table s raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues; includi ncluding as to whether the petitioner h into oner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in que in question, the evidentiary value of ainst lue of the material available against the petitioner tioner as also the veracity/ weightag the ightage required to be given to the hostile witness itnesses; shall be gone into during t ourt uring the course of trial. This Court does not deem deem it appropriate to delve deep i s, at deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest e, lest it may prejudice the trial. Noth ught l. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to in to indicate the likelihood of the pe the the petitioner absconding from the process of ju of justice or interfering with the p per the prosecution evidence. As per custody certifi certificate dated 22.07.2025 filed by l, the ed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has r has already suffered incarceration 04 ration for a period of more than 04 years and 04 04 months. Further, as per the the er the said custody certificate the petitioner is st r is stated to be involved in 02 more ctum more cases. However, this factum cannot be a gr e a ground sufficient by itself, to dec gular to decline the concession of regular bail to the peti he petitioner in the FIR in question wh grant on when a case is made out for grant of regular ba lar bail qua the FIR in question the estion by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumsta cumstances of the said FIR. Reliance laced eliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgm e judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme C mir eme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. St v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 ; a 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Benc Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Ca se of ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v as v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Crimin this riminal) 477 & judgments of this MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.23 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-24325- -2024 (O&M) 4 4 Court in CRM n CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as of ed as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, deci , decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj (3) lraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Crimina minal) 191. Suffice to say, further detenti s an detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is no al is not warranted in the facts and circ nd circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present pe er is ent petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be to be released on regular bail on his f ds to n his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfactio sfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/D r, in CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to co to conditions that may be imposed Duty posed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the ate, the petitioner shall remain bound b nd by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis ot mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tam ot tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the ng the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not abs efore ot absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not com ot commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposi the deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give the give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO ation r/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his ce prior his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Cour l Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in the not in any manner try to delay the trial. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.23 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 5 5 CRM-M-24325- -2024 (O&M) 8. In case of breach of any of the a those f the aforesaid conditions and those which may b ay be imposed by concerned CJM ected CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove ove or upon showing any o ny other sufficient cause, the the State/complain mplainant shall be at liberty to mov f the o move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. 10. Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be on of hall be construed as an expression of opinion on the on the merits of the case. 11. Since the main case has been de eous een decided, pending miscellaneous application, if ion, if any, shall also stands disposed o osed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 2025 July 23, 2025 mahavir Whether speakin peaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportab eportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.23 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment