CRM-M-27816-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 235 Vishal v. CRM-M-27816-2025
Case Details
CRM-M-27816-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 235 Vishal @ Vicky Sodhi State of Haryana Versus CRM-M-27816-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.05.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Legal Reasoning
Present: Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.583 dated 21.11.2022 registered under Sections 307, 120-B IPC and Section 25- 54-59 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Thanesar City, District Kurukshetra. 2. As per the allegations in the FIR, on 21.11.2022 at about 03:15 PM, the complainant Pooja received a call from her husband Shamsher Singh, informing her that Rahul Malik, along with his accomplices Vicky Sodhi and Sachin Sudhail, had fired multiple gunshots at him outside his shop, K.K.S. Bartan Bhandar, with intent to kill, due to a grudge stemming from a prior incident occurred in the year 2021. Upon reaching the spot with her parents, Pooja found her husband injured with bullet wounds on both legs and one hand. She alleged that MOHD YAKUB 2025.05.26 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-27816-2025 2 the attack was a premeditated act carried out after conducting reconnaissance, and she suspected the involvement of other individuals namely Gopi Chand, Rahul (Gopi's brother), Parveen, and Mandeep @ Kalu, who were previously involved in a fight occurred with her husband in the year 2021 which was settled in a panchayat. Shamsher Singh was taken to LNJP Hospital for treatment, and thereafter, the impugned FIR was registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the main accused Rahul Malik had a dispute with the husband of the complainant Shamsher Singh and as per the case set up by the prosecution, the complainant in the FIR (supra) alleged that the gunshots were fired upon her husband by Rahul Malik and thereafter, his companions also fired upon him due to a grudge of old fight pertaining to the year 2021 with Rahul Malik. The petitioner along with one Sachin is alleged to have helped Rahul Malik in doing recce. The similarly situated co-accused namely Prince @ Bachhi, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.11.2023 passed in CRM-M No.37890 of 2023. Further two country-made pistols were recovered from the aforementioned Prince @ Bachhi, however, nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has suffered the incarceration of more than 02 years and 03 months and the complainant is not coming forward to depose and the last witness was examined by the prosecution on 21.05.2024. MOHD YAKUB 2025.05.26 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-27816-2025 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly contends that although the petitioner is involved in other cases also, however, he is on bail in all those cases. He further submits that there are total 33 prosecution witnesses cited in the list of witnesses, out of which, only 02 PWs have been examined till date and the trial is likely to take long time in conclusion. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has filed custody certificate today in the Court which is taken on record and he opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has actively participated in committing the alleged crime and the victim suffered gunshots injuries and the petitioner has actively aided the main accused Rahul Malik and he is a habitual offender and is involved in other cases also, as such, in view of the criminal antecedental behaviour, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars from the last 02 years, 03 months and 21 days. Investigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court. Charges were framed and trial of the case has not made much progress. Out of 33 prosecution witnesses, 02 PWs have been examined so far. 7. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI”, (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed: MOHD YAKUB 2025.05.26 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-27816-2025 4 “6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other.” 8. Further the culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial and as such, no useful purpose will be served by further detention of the petitioner-accused. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. Further keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. and another” 2020 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal 831) and “Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and another”, 2012 (2) SCC 382, the involvement of the petitioner in other cases would not be a ground to refuse grant of concession of regular bail. MOHD YAKUB 2025.05.26 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-27816-2025 5 10. In view the discussion above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the petitioner namely Vishal @ Vicky Sodhi is ordered to be released on regular bail during pendency of the trial, on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 11. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be expression of an opinion by this Court on merits of the case. The learned Court below is directed to proceed with the matter on its own merits, lest it may prejudice the trial. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 26.05.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2025.05.26 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh