Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1738 (PNJ)

Sanjay @ Fagwa v. State of Haryana

2013-12-28

K.C.PURI

body2013
Judgment K.C. Puri, J. Petitioner Sanjay @ Fagwa has applied for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 260 dated 31.7.2011 under Section 302 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. The law was set in motion by recording the statement of Raghu Chaudhary who has stated that there was an altercation between the deceased and the petitioner. In the night the complainant and the petitioner slept in the room. Applicant-petitioner Sanjay @ Fagwa woke up at the night and started going outside. The complainant asked him why he was going outside, then he replied to him that he is not getting sleep, so he is going for a little walk. In the morning, Shivaji nephew of the complainant was found murdered. Sanjay @ Fagwa applicant was found missing. There is evidence of extra judicial confession and recovery of weapon from him. There is evidence of last seen also. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Surinder Kumar, witness of the extra judicial confession has not supported the case of the prosecution. In my view, that is not a ground for grant of bail, more so, when there is other evidence on the file. So far as reliance of counsel for the petitioner on authority reported as Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju vs. State of Punjab 2010 (6) RCR (Criminal) 1850, is concerned, in that case the witness of extra judicial confession was a stock witness and the accused remained in custody for 2 years and 7 months. The authority reported as Lovepreet Kaur vs. State of Punjab 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 763, relied upon by counsel for the petitioner, is also distinguishable to the facts of the present case, as in that case star witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. So far as authority reported as Swapna Singh vs. U.T., Chandigarh 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal) 218, relied upon by counsel for the petitioner, is concerned, in that case, lady doctor was the accused and she remained in custody for 3 years for murder of her own husband and 15 witnesses were yet to be examined. In those circumstances, bail was granted to her. The authority reported as Takht Singh and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2001 (10) SCC 463 , relied upon by counsel for the petitioner relates to the grant of bail after conviction. In those circumstances, bail was granted to her. The authority reported as Takht Singh and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2001 (10) SCC 463 , relied upon by counsel for the petitioner relates to the grant of bail after conviction. The accused remained in custody for more than 3 years and there was no possibility of appeal to be heard. The authority in State of Rajasthan vs. Rajaram 2003 (4) RCR (Criminal) 238, relied upon by counsel for the petitioner, relates to final decision of the case after appreciating the evidence. So, in these circumstances, no ground for grant of bail is made out. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial, preferably within 9 months.