Ramandeep vs State Of Haryana

Anoop Chitkara, J

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

108

28.05.2021

Bhuna, District Fatehabad (Haryana)

188, 307, 34 IPC and 51(b) of The Disaster Management Act, 2005 and 25 of Arms Act, 1959

The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail.

In paragraph 29 of the bail application, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No

FIR No

Date

Offences

Police Station

1

92

26.02.2018

302, 34 IPC

City Dabwali, District Sirsa (Haryana)

The petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

While opposing the bail, the contentions on behalf of the State are that given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail.

REASONING:

In Paramjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M 50243 of 2021, this court observed,

While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles.

The petitioner has criminal history of a conviction in a murder case. The petition does not refer to any averment based on which this court is assured that if this recidivist is released on bail, then he shall not indulge in criminal behavior.

On May 27, 2021, the petitioner and his accomplice Vikram Bhambu attacked the victim and fired multiple shots at him. One shot fired by Vikram Bhambu hit the victim's chest and penetrated a hole in the mobile phone, taking the impact, and eventually, due to sheer luck and timely treatment, the victim survived.

A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached, primafacie points towards the petitioner’s involvement and does not make out a case for bail and he is neither entitled to bail on merits nor on the grounds of prolonged pre-trial incarceration. Any further discussions are likely to prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

The petition is dismissed. However, considering the petitioners’ custody, this court requests the concerned trial court to make all endeavours to conclude the trial by Oct 31, 2023, of which the prosecution evidence be completed by Sep 30, 2023, and the remaining time to provide an opportunity to the accused to lead defence evidence, if so desired. It is clarified that this order speeding-up the trial is subject to the condition that neither the petitioner shall seek any adjournment nor try to use any tactics to delay the trial. If they do so, this order of expediting the trial shall stand automatically recalled by resorting to Section 362, read with Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without any further reference to this court. All pending applications, if any, stand closed.