Puneet v. State of Haryana
Case Details
CRM-M-65396-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 CRM-M-65396-2024 Reserved on: 10.07.2025 Pronounced on: 29.07.2025 Puneet ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Naveen K. Sheoran, DAG, Haryana. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 536 15.11.2023 Old Sabji Mandi, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 460, Rohtak 506, 201 IPC and 25 of Arms Act 1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above came before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, seeking regular bail. 2. In paragraph 8 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: “That the statement of complainant Vikas S/o Jagbir R/o Para Mohalla, Rohtak was recorded. In his statement the complainant narrated that he is doing labour work. On 13/11/2023 in night at about 10:00 P.M. guests were come in his house. His uncle Ashok S/o Chiranji is also used to reside in the neighbour of complainant. The complainant heard the noise of quarrel on the roof of his uncle and when complainant reached there he saw that his neighbour Vinod @ Nodi S/o Raghbir, his wife Sunita caught hold the uncle of complainant namely Ashok and cousin of complainant namely Vipin S/o Deichand R/o Para Mohalla, Rohtak was caught hold by Paras S/o Vinod and Tushar @ Aaloo S/o Chini. The accused Vinay S/o Vinod and Puneet s/o Chini were armed with knives and were causing injuries to Vipin. The aunt of complainant namely Poonam W/o Dharmender and cousin Vishal S/o Dharmender were tried to save them. The complainant tried to save his cousin Vipin, then Punit gave a brick 1 ANJU RANI 2025.07.30 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M-65396-2024 2 blow on the forehead of complainant. The complainant and his cousin Vipin become unconscious and fell down. The family members got admitted the injuries in hospital. The accused have attacked on Vipin with intention to kill him. After causing the injuries the accused fled away from the spot. On the basis of said complaint a case vide FIR No.536 dated 15/11/2023 U/s 148, 149, 323, 324, registered at Police 452, 307, 506 IPC was Station Old Sabzi Mandi, Rohtak.” 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. Counsel further submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection. 5. 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows: “11. That the specific role of the petitioner is that he with the help of knife caused injuries to injured. As per disclosure statement of petitioner a knife was recovered from him.” REASONING: 7. There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. 8. Per the custody certificate dated 09.07.2025 the petitioner’s total custody in this FIR is 01 year, 07 months & 13 days. 9. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage. 10. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. 11. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. ANJU RANI 2025.07.30 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-65396-2024 12. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 3 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 13. 14. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court. 15. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall not enter the property, workplace, and residence of the victim until the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial are recorded. This Court is imposing this condition to rule out any attempt by the accused to incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the victim. Reference be made to Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna Bhatt v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230. 16. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the victim, and their family members, as well as the members of society, and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearm(s). [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days from release from prison and inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense. 17. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT ANJU RANI 2025.07.30 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 3 4 CRM-M-65396-2024 of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that “The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.” 18. It is clarified that if the petitioner violates any bail condition, the State and/or the victim may file an application for bail cancellation before the trial court, which shall be competent to cancel the bail or add more conditions. Furthermore, if the petitioner moves for deletion or dilution of any bail conditions, the trial court is empowered to do so. 19. The significant consideration for granting bail is that the Court aims to give the petitioner another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citizen. To ensure that the petitioner also abides by the assurance made on the petitioner’s behalf by not repeating the offence or indulging in any crime, it shall be desirable to impose the following additional condition. 20. This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail. 21. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 22. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 23. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
Decision
stand disposed of. 29.07.2025 anju rani (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No Whether reportable: ANJU RANI 2025.07.30 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 4