Rattan Singh v. State of Haryana
Case Details
CRM-M-22505-2025 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 229 CRM-M-22505-2025 Decided on : 26.05.2025 Rattan Singh . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. A.K. Jhanda, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Manoj Tanwar, Advocate for the complainant. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District Rattan Singh 277 22.08.2024 103(1) 3(5), 61 BNS, 2023 (deleted later on), Section 105, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 (added later on) Kunjpura Karnal 2. At the outset, learned State counsel has filed the status report dated 24.05.2025 in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to para No.7 of the JAWALA RAM 2025.05.27 19:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-22505-2025 - 2 - status report dated 24.05.2025, filed by the State in Court today, submits that as of now, petitioner cannot be stated to be an accused for committing offence u/s 103(1) of BNS, 2023, because, as per latest investigation conducted by the police, the alleged offences u/s 103(1), 61(2) of BNS, 2023, have been deleted and Section 105 of BNS, 2023, has been added, i.e., culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Counsel further submits that the involvement of the petitioner in the death of the deceased ‘Krishan’, is highly questionable. In addition, counsel for the petitioner refers to order dated 22.04.2025, passed in CRM-M- 7056-2025, titled as, “Suresh @ Bittu v. State of Haryana” (Annexure P-7) and submits that similarly situated co-accused, i.e., Suresh @ Bittu, who is on similar footings, has been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. Therefore, claiming parity, learned counsel prays for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that though the Investigating Agency has filed challan u/s 105 of BNS, 2023, but at the time of framing of charges, trial Court has charged him u/s 103(1) of BNS, 2023. Therefore, petitioner is facing the charges for causing the murder of deceased ‘Krishan’. 5. Counsel appearing for the complainant also vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that, keeping in view the nature of the offence, petitioner does not deserve any leniency, as there is a likelihood of tampering with the evidence and influencing the prosecution witnesses at the instance of the petitioner. 6. I have considered the plea addressed by both the sides and gone through the status report, more specific paragraph No.7 of the status report, JAWALA RAM 2025.05.27 19:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-22505-2025 - 3 - which is reproduced here-under:- “7- That on 22/10/2024, several persons from both the side had appeared by IO/ Ins. Mahabir as well as before the then Dy. Superintendent of Police Indri District Karnal and from the verification of the investigation and enquiry from the persons it was ascertained that there was no previous dispute or abusing between the accused or deceased Krishan or his family earlier. Rather Ramesh who is brother of the petitioner, after getting permission from Balkar Singh who has taken this land on lease, has affixed the wire of electricity on Kotha of electricity. Anku S/o Ran Singh became angry at once on seeing this wire and called the deceased Krishan and Vikas at the spot. On immediate reaching at the spot, deceased Krishan and Vikas in aggressive manner started abusing to the co-accused Rattan Singh and by taking the advantage of their gathering they tried to manhandle with co-accused Rattan Singh. In self-defence, co-accused Rattan Singh taken a pipe of the mesons working there and round it over his body for safety which struck on head of deceased Krishan. After that the deceased Krishan keep himself at a distance and abused aggressively. On seeing the molding side of pipe, which hit on head of deceased Krishan, does not show of any fast hitting sufficient to cause death. The petitioner and co-accused Rattan Singh have not been found inflicting injuries to the deceased Krishan in their any previous enmity while the deceased Krishan was found in aggressive for raising the quarrel on being called by his cousin. Without any intention of causing injury to the deceased Krishan in the quarrel, death was found to be occurred due to the injury to the head or possibly because of a sudden illness in the body of the deceased Krishan. At the time of quarrel with the co-accused Krishan, the petitioner was found in catching the deceased from back side with the intention to intervene the matter. Offence u/s 103(1), 61(2) of BNS was not found to be made out, therefore, Sections 103(1), 61(2) of BNS were deleted rather Section 105 of BNS was added on 22/10/2024 in the case.” 7. JAWALA RAM 2025.05.27 19:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Besides, Court has also noticed the medical opinion, which is CRM-M-22505-2025 - 4 - there available on record. Petitioner is inside jail since 05.09.2024 and the process for recording of evidence is yet to start, as statement of none of the witnesses has been recorded. Therefore, in the totality of circumstances, I deem it appropriate to entertain the petitioner’s plea for regular bail, as further custody of the petitioner, is not of any use for the prosecution. 8. Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 9. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 10. The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record. 11.
Decision
Petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE May 26, 2025 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2025.05.27 19:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document