Shantanu vs State Of Haryana

Arun Kumar Tyagi, J

(The case has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing.)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

The petitioner has filed the present (first) petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ""the Cr.P.C."") for grant of

regular bail in case FIR No.95 dated 19.06.2020 registered under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (for short, ""the IPC"") at Police Station Bond Kalan, District Charkhi Dadri to which Sections 307 and 302 of the IPC were added lateron.

The above said FIR was registered initially under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325 and 506 read with Section 149 on statement of complainant Vikram. In

his statement Vikram alleged that on 16.05.2020 at about 08:00 A.M. when they went to their plot to restrain Balwant Singh, his three sons, two

daughters-in-law, two grandsons, Meena, Ajay and Rohit and Savitri from forcibly raising construction on the same, the above said persons attacked

them and caused injuries to him, his father, elder paternal uncles Suraj Bhan and Balbir and his brother Ashish, cousin Arun and his mother Chandro

Devi. Subsequently, on receipt of medical opinion as to injury on the person of Suraj Bhan being dangerous to life Section 307 of the IPC was added

and on his death Section 302 of the IPC was added.

The petitioner, who is in custody since 11.07.2020, has filed the present petition for grant of regular bail.

The petition has been opposed by learned State Counsel in terms of reply filed by way of affidavit of Bali Singh, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Charkhi Dadri in the registry which is taken on record.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel and gone through the relevant record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The family of the petitioner was raising the

construction on their own plot but the complainant party did not allow them to raise the construction. The quarrel took place on the spot in which both

the parties suffered simple and grievous injuries. The police in connivance with the complainant registered FIR against the petitioner and his co-

accused but did not take any action against the complainant party. The petitioner party also filed complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class

and on his direction the police registered FIR No.147 dated 28.08.2020. As per statement of complainant Vikram and injured Balbir, the petitioner is

alleged to have given blow on the head of Balbir with iron rod which injury was declared to be simple and the petitioner is not alleged to have caused

any injury to deceased Suraj Bhan. Deceased Suraj Bhan suffered only one injury on his head which is attributed to co-accused Amit. Deceased Suraj

Bhan was discharged from PGIMS Rohtak after three days and he died subsequently after one month due to having fallen down in the toilet. Similarly

placed co-accused Savitri has been granted anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.11.2020 passed in CRM-M-

35835-2020. The trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of infection of Covid-19 and no useful purpose will be

served by further detention of the petitioner in custody. Therefore, the petitioner may be granted regular bail.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has submitted that the petitioner along with his co-accused committed murder of Suraj Bhan and caused

injuries to others. The petitioner has also been attributed the role of causing injuries to deceased Suraj Bhan. In view of the nature of accusation and

gravity of the offences, the petitioner does not deserve grant of regular bail. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.

In the present case the fatal injury caused to deceased Suraj Bhan attracting Section 302 of the IPC is attributed to co-accused Amit. Injuries

allegedly caused by the petitioner to complainant Vikram, injured Balbir and deceased Suraj Bhan are stated to have been declared to be simple.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, involvement of version and cross-version, nature of accusation and evidence against the

petitioner, specific overt-acts/role attributed to him and also the fact that the trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent the

spread of Covid-19, but without commenting on the merits of the case, I am inclined to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing of personal and surety bonds to

the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.