Alim vs State Of Haryana

Arun Monga, J

Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 523 dated 01.12.2012, registered under Sections 186, 332, 353, 307, 420, 120-B IPC, Sections 24, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, Section 3(2) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act read with Section 4-A/8 of Cow Slaughtering Act, 1972, Police Station Daruhera, District Rewari.

Per FIR, on 01.12.2012, a police party headed by ASI Sanjay Kumar received secret information about smuggling of cows from Rajasthan in vehicle No. HR27-5460 and taking them to Mewat. It was also informed that the aforesaid vehicle is escorted by a pick up vehicle being driven by Roojdar @ Chora and Sammu. Pursuant to said secret information, barricades were laid. In the meanwhile, police noticed a pick up vehicle followed by aforesaid vehicle bearing registration No. HR27-5460. They were signalled to stop, but the driver of the vehicles tried to run over the police party, damaged the government vehicles and tried to flee. Per FIR, the occupants of the pick up vehicle opened fire on the police and there was exchange of fire shots by the police in self defence. The police nabbed Sammu and Roojdar @ Chora at the spot. They disclosed the names of persons sitting in truck as Rahish, Raju and Alim(present petitioner). The petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender and arrested by the police on 21.06.2020.

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR. According to him, petitioner was implicated in the case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. He points out that on conclusion of trial against the co-accused, against whom there were allegations of firing gun shots, they have been acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 29.08.2014. However, since the petitioner was not aware of this case, he was wrongly declared a proclaimed offender. He further submits that no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner and at worst, role attributed to the petitioner was that he was merely an accomplice of the main accused. According to him, it is not the case of the prosecution that he was carrying any fire arm or fired any gun shots like other accused, who have been acquitted. According to him, now the investigating agency has to file supplementary challan against the petitioner and the trial is not likely to commence or conclude anytime soon due to Covid-19 pandemic.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the bail plea. On a query of Court, learned State counsel does not controvert that main accused who were attributed the role of firing gun shots on the police officials have been acquitted by the trial Court and the trial qua the petitioner, who had not joined the proceedings and was declared a proclaimed offender, is still pending. He further submits that petitioner is currently confined in judicial custody and as a necessary implication thereof, he is not required for any further investigation. He admits that trial against the present petitioner has yet to commence.

The petitioner is in custody for about three months. The allegations against the petitioner have to be adjudicated after the trial. At this juncture, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping petitioner in custody any more, especially when investigation is over and trial is not likely to commence or conclude anytime soon in view of current pandemic scenario. The Courts are currently working with restrictions due to Covid-19 pandemic and are taking up only urgent matters.

Taking wholesome view of the matter and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner is admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, as the case may be.

Petition stands allowed accordingly.