The High Court
Case Details
CRM-M-53807-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-53807-2024 Reserved on: 09.01.2025 Pronounced on: 28.01.2025 Rahul @ Pakoda ...Pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Manvender S.Chauhan, Advocate, for the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner. Ms. Harpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Sta2on Sec2ons 24 27.01.2024 Barauda, District Sonipat 120-B, 148, 149, 302, 506 IPC and Sec(cid:14)ons 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act 1.
Legal Reasoning
The pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner incarcerated in the FIR cap(cid:14)oned above came before this Court under Sec(cid:14)on 483 of Bhara(cid:14)ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail. 2. In paragraph 11 of the bail pe(cid:14)(cid:14)on, the accused has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. 1. 2. FIR No. Dated 85 704 23.04.2019 06.12.2018 Offenses 29, 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act 3. 65 17.02.2023 323, 506, 34 IPC Police Sta2on Baroda, Dis<. Sonipat City Gohana, Dis<. Sonipat Baroda, Dis<. Sonipat 3. The facts of the case are being taken from the FIR (Annexure P-1), which reads as follows: “To respected SHO, PS Barauda, it is requested that, I Sahil son of Surender resident of Barauda Thuthan, PS Barauda, and I am doing agriculturist work with my father, that one or one and half year ago, I had an alterca on with Rahul @ Pakoda and Rohit sons of Raghbir resident of Barauda Thuthan. Due to which these had grudges against me and my 1 JYOTI 2025.01.28 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-53807-2024 father. Today on 27.01.2024 at around 12:30/12:45 PM, I was having meal, then Mohit son of Ajmer, resident of Baraudamorh came to call my father and took my father on his motorcycle outside of our house. When I got suspicious, I and my grandfather namely Rajbir Singh S/o Chandgi Ram start following them on my motorcycle, Mohit took my father near stadium of our village. Where Sumit son of Raj Kumar, Sachin son of Dharambur R/o Ahluana, which is of our neighbor village and Khush s/o Satpal of our village were already standing there. They all took my father to open space behind the stadium. While seeing of us, Sumit son of Raj Kumar and Sachin son of Dharambir, resident of Village Ahluana caught my father and Khush son of Satpal took out his weapon from his possession and shot my father and then Sumit S/o Raj Kumar took weapon and then shot and when I and my grandfather ran towards them to save, they saw us and start running. And while leaving they said, see this is the result of having enmity with Rahul alias Pakoda and Rohit sons of Raghbir and fled away while threatening to kill me and my grandfather on their motorcycle. I and my grandfather started taking care of my father. These abovemen oned culprits have conspired with each other and shot my father dead. Now I am reques ng to take ac on by submi9ng complaint a:er arriving of my rela ves. Legal ac on should be taken against all the above culprits.” 4. The pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi(cid:14)ons and contends that further pre-trial incarcera(cid:14)on would cause an irreversible injus(cid:14)ce to the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner and his family. 5. 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. It would be appropriate to refer to the following por(cid:14)ons of the status report, which read as follows: “3. That during inves ga on, the place of occurrence was inspected in the presence of FSL Team and its rough site plan was prepared. The blood stained earth and two empty cartridges lying at the spot were li:ed and taken into possession. Inquest proceedings under Sec on 174 Cr.P.C. pertaining to death of deceased Surender were conducted. Postmortem examina on on the dead body of deceased was got conducted and as per postmortem report, total five external injuries were found on the person of deceased Surender and cause of death in this case was opined to be JYOTI 2025.01.28 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 2 CRM-M-53807-2024 firearm injuries and its complica ons and all the injuries were ante- mortem in nature. However, viscera was preserved from chemical analysis. The parcels handed over by the Doctor were taken into possession. Statements of witnesses were recorded. 4. That on 28.01.2024, pe oner/accused Rahul @ Pakoda was arrested in the present case and on interroga on, he suffered disclosure statement and admiCed his guilt and also disclosed that he is friend of co-accused Sumit son of Raj Kumar, Mohit son of Ajmer, Kush son of Satpal and Sachin son of Dharambir. About 1 - 1½ years ago, he had alterca on with complainant Sahil son of Surender, due to which he was nursing grudge against said Sahil and his father Surender, which was also disclosed by him to his above named friends. Pe oner/accused Rahul @ Pakoda further disclosed that on 26.01.2024, he along with his friends Sumit, Mohit, Kush and Sachin had consumed liquor, where they had hatched the conspiracy that co-accused Mohit will call/bring father of Sahil namely Surender from their house on some excuse and will bring him behind the stadium of their village and will make him busy in talks and therea:er, Sumit and Sachin will catch hold of Surender and in the mean me, Kush will fire gunshots at Surender and therea:er, they will flee away from the spot and therea:er, he (pe oner) will defend their case and will incur all the expenses. A:er hatching this conspiracy, they all had parted away. Pe oner/accused Rahul @ Pakoda further disclosed that therea:er on 27.01.2024, as per their conspiracy, co-accused Mohit had taken away deceased Surender behind the stadium of their village, where other co- accused Sumit, Mohit, Kush and Sachin had murdered Surender by firing gunshots at him. Therea:er, other co-accused had telephonically informed him (pe oner) that they have already murdered Surender, upon which he (pe oner) asked them to flee away and he will manage all the subsequent proceedings. He further disclosed that when he came to know that complainant Sahil also taken his name in his complaint, he had absconded a:er concealing his mobile phone. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, pe oner/accused Rahul @ Pakoda got recovered his mobile phone. 5. That during inves ga on, co-accused Mohit son of Ajmer, Sumit son of Raj Kumar, Sachin son of Dharambir and Kush son of Satpal were arrested in another case bearing FIR No.23 dated 27.01.2024, under Sec ons 379- B/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act, Police Sta on Baroda, Sonipat, in which they suffered their respec ve disclosure statements admi9ng having 3 JYOTI 2025.01.28 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-53807-2024 commiCed the offence pertaining to present case also and to have already got recovered the country made pistol used in the present case, in said case bearing FIR No.23 dated 27.01.2024, under Sec ons 379-B/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act, Police Sta on Baroda, Sonipat. Therea:er, produc on warrants of accused Mohit, Sumit, Sachin and Kush were got issued from the learned Court for 14.03.2024, on which date, they were joined in the inves ga on of present case with the permission of learned Court and accused Mohit, Sumit, Sachin and Kush were arrested in the present case on 14.03.2024. On interroga on, accused Mohit, Sumit, Sachin and Kush suffered their respec ve disclosure statements and admiCed their guilt, pursuant to which they got demarcated the place of occurrence. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, accused Sumit got recovered motorcycle bearing registra on No.HR-15A-5449 used at the me of crime, which was taken into possession. During inves ga on, the country made pistol used by accused persons in the present case, was got transferred from FIR No.23 dated 27.01.2024, under Sec ons 379-B/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act, Police Sta on Baroda, Sonipat, which was got recovered by accused Kush in the said case. The relevant documents pertaining to FIR No.23 dated 27.01.2024 were also obtained and taken into possession. 6. That during inves ga on, the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence was got prepared. The case property was deposited with FSL, Madhuban. Statements of witnesses were recorded, but from the evidence collected so far in the present case, no incrimina ng evidence was found to effect the arrest of Rohit son of Raghbir. Statements of witnesses were recorded and other relevant evidence was collected and a:er comple on of inves ga on, report under Sec on 173 Cr.P.C. was submiCed in the Court against accused Mohit, Sumit, Sachin, Kush and Rahul @ Pakoda (pe oner) on 24.04.2024, under Sec ons 148/149/120-B/302/506 IPC and 25 Arms Act and a:er framing of charges against them vide order dated 25.07.2024 under Sec ons 148, 302, 120-B, 506 read with Sec on 149 IPC and 25(1-B) Arms Act, now the said case is pending in the Court of learned Addi onal Sessions Judge, Sonipat for 12.02.2025 for prosecu on evidence. There are 24 witnesses in this case and all the witnesses are yet to be examined in the present case. 7. That in the instant case, there are direct and specific allega ons and sufficient evidence against pe oner regarding his involvement in the present case. He is specifically named in the FIR as well as statements of 4 JYOTI 2025.01.28 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-53807-2024 witnesses. A specific role has been aCributed to pe oner regarding his involvement in the above men oned crime. Pe oner/accused Rahul @ Pakoda is the kingpin of the crime in ques on, as he had mo ve for the above men oned crime, due to previous alterca on with complainant Sahil, due to which pe oner was nursing grudge against complainant and his father i.e. deceased Surender. Pe oner along with co-accused had hatched the conspiracy to commit the murder of deceased Surender and in execu on of the said mee ng of minds, accused Mohit son of Ajmer brought the deceased to the spot from his house, where co-accused Sumit, Sachin and Kush had murdered him. Though, pe oner was not present at the spot, but it was pe oner only, who was nursing grudge against deceased Surender and complainant Sahil and it was the conspiracy hatched by pe oner, in execu on of which the above said murder was commiCed. xxx xxx” 7. The pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner is the main accused because he had the enmity which led to killing. The pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner was not only named in the FIR but he had the mo(cid:14)ve. Although, the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner was not present at the spot but the en(cid:14)re conspiracy was hatched at his instance and there is sufficient evidence against him. In addi(cid:14)on to the present case, the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner has massive criminal history of cases referred to physical assaults, Arms Act and snatching. 8. A perusal of the bail pe(cid:14)(cid:14)on and the documents a<ached primafacie points towards the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner’s involvement and does not make out a case for bail. The impact of crime would not jus(cid:14)fy bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner; this court refrains from doing so. 9. The pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner’s custody of around 11 months and 12 days cannot be termed prolonged, given the minimum sentence prescribed for the offense, which is life imprisonment. 10. Any observa(cid:14)on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 11.
Decision
Pe22on dismissed. All pending applica(cid:14)ons, if any, are disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 28.01.2025/Jyo2-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes No. JYOTI 2025.01.28 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 5