Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2902 (PNJ)

Balkishan @ Mangtu v. State of Haryana

2023-10-03

ARUN MONGA

body2023
JUDGMENT Arun Monga, J. - This is the second petition filed by the petitioner before this Court seeking his release as an undertrial in a case bearing FIR No. 0433, dated 28.09.2020, registered under Sections 302, 323, 325, 452, 506, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), at Police Station, Narnaund, District Hisar. The earlier petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed in CRM-M-1795-2022. 2. According to the prosecution's account, Ram Mehar (complainant) got his statement recorded to the effect that on September 27, 2020, at about 6:30 p.m., his son Lokesh, along with his friends Vicky, son of Krishan, and Raju, son of Rampal, went for a walk. When they reached near the office of the Fire Brigade in Narnaund, Parmod, son of Suresh, and Rahul, son of Balraj, met them and slapped and punched his son Lokesh without any reason. Friends of his son and passers-by intervened, and the matter was pacified. Thereafter, his son Lokesh came home, and his friends also left for their respective houses.Later, at about 7:30 p.m., Balraj, Chidya, Rahul, Nasib, Bal Kishan @ Mangat (petitioner), Bantu, Vishal, the wife of Bal Kishan, Purushotam, Suresh, Kamlesh, Dev Raj, Jindal, Rahul, Parmod, Kanhya, Aman, Rohit, Sombir, Ajay, along with 8-10 other individuals armed with lathis, dandas, gandasis, and knives, came to their house and started verbally abusing them. Parmod, Rahul, and Vishal dragged out his brother Ram Kumar onto the street, and all the accused attacked Ram Kumar. Upon hearing the commotion, Hari Chand, Karambir @ Karmu, Bala, Sachin @ Som Nath, and other family members came to the scene to rescue them. Rahul struck a blow to his nephew Karambir @ Karmu's head with a lathi, followed by Kanhya striking a gandasi blow to his uncle Hari Chand's head. Jindal and Suresh struck gandasi blows to his nephew Som Nath @ Sachin's head and shoulder. Chidya, Kamlesh, and the wife of Bal Kishan struck danda blows to his sister-in-law (Bhabi) on her leg and back. Vishal struck a knife blow to his brother Ram Kumar's left side of the abdomen, and Parmod struck a gandasi blow to his brother Ram Kumar's head. The petitioner then inflicted a gandasi blow to his brother Ram Kumar's head, and all the accused attacked other members of his family. Vishal struck a knife blow to his brother Ram Kumar's left side of the abdomen, and Parmod struck a gandasi blow to his brother Ram Kumar's head. The petitioner then inflicted a gandasi blow to his brother Ram Kumar's head, and all the accused attacked other members of his family. When local residents arrived at the scene, all the assailants fled with their weapons, threatening to kill them if they got the chance in the future. All the injured individuals were taken to the hospital. Due to the precarious condition of his brother Ram Kumar, he was transferred to Civil Hospital, Hansi, where he was declared brought dead. FIR was registered. An investigation was carried out. During the investigation, accused Rohit, Ajay, and Sombir were found innocent. Further investigation led to the addition of Section 325 IPC upon receiving the X-ray report. On 01.10.2020, the petitioner and coaccused Jindal were arrested. Based on the disclosure statement, the petitioner's Danda, which was used during the incident, was recovered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to the post-mortem report, the deceased died due to abdominal injury, which contradicts the prosecution's claim that the petitioner struck a gandasi blow to the deceased's head, which was not the fatal injury as per the post-mortem report. The complainant also mentioned an earlier dispute between the two families, suggesting that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. 3.1. Furthermore, learned counsel contends that the petitioner's co-accused, namely Geeta and Dev Raj, have already been granted bail by this Court in separate orders dated 15.02.2021 and 12.07.2021, respectively. Additionally, there is nothing to be recovered from the petitioner, and he is not required for further custodial interrogation. The petitioner is not involved in any other case. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail petition, citing the seriousness of the offense. He argues that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is a risk of him fleeing from trial proceedings, tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses. However, it is admitted that there is no other case against the petitioner. 5. I have heard the arguments from both sides and reviewed the case file. It is borne out that the challan has already been presented, and charges were framed on 02.06.2021. The investigation is complete regarding the petitioner, and he is not required for custodial interrogation. However, it is admitted that there is no other case against the petitioner. 5. I have heard the arguments from both sides and reviewed the case file. It is borne out that the challan has already been presented, and charges were framed on 02.06.2021. The investigation is complete regarding the petitioner, and he is not required for custodial interrogation. Out of a total of 36 witnesses, only 07 have been examined so far, and one has been dropped. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time, proceeding at a slow pace. Meanwhile, the petitioner has been in jail for over 03 years, detained since 01.10.2020. 6. The petitioner is being held in preventive custody on the suspicion that he may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if released, despite the fact that the investigating agency has already seized the evidence. The petitioner, being 47 years old with a fixed abode and a clean record, is unlikely to pose a flight risk or flee from trial proceedings. 7. Moreover, the co-accused Geeta and Dev Raj have already been granted bail by this Court. 8. Considering the overall situation and without commenting on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. It is the view of this Court that keeping the petitioner in further preventive custody would serve no useful purpose. 9. Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, where his case is being tried and in case he/she is not available, before learned Duty Judge, as the case may be. 10. Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on merits of the case as the same are for limited purpose of bail hearing alone and learned trial Court shall proceed without being influenced with this order. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.