AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-
| Name of Petitioner(s) | FIR No. | Date | Section(s) | Police Station | District |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deepak alias Dipak Chouhan, aged about 28 years | 231 | 25.07.2023 | 25(1-B)(A), 54 and 59 of Arms Act, 1959, and [sections 115 and 120-B of IPC (corresponding to sections 55 and 61(2) of BNS) added later on] | Uklana | Hisar |
On the very outset, counsel for the petitioner submits that main accused, namely Manjeet @ Meetu, from whom recovery of 2 pistols of 32 bore and one country made pistol of 12 bore were recovered, was granted the concession of regular bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 27.09.2024 passed in CRM-M-15993-2024 (Annexure P-5). Facts and allegations, mentioned in paragraph No.3 of the said order, are reproduced here under, for reference:-
“2.That brief facts of the case are that on 25.7.2023 ASI Raj kumar No. 151/Hisar along with constable Anil No. 1119/Hisar along with constable Virender No. 539/Hisar along with constable Sonu No. 443/Hisar were on patrolling in government vehicle bearing registration No. H20GV-3291 in the area of Dhani chal kari, where the secret informer came and gave information that Manjeet @ Meetu son of Kuldeep resident of village chamar khera is possessing illicit weapons and he was wearing cream colour Tshirt and black colour jeans, it was also informed that he had kept the said illicit weapons in his bag, as well as he is in the opportunity of going somewhere and in case the raid is conducted then he can be arrested along with said illicit weapons. After relying upon the information ASI informed his colleagues and raiding party was constituted but none among the public was ready to become part of the raiding party, in pursuance of the information when team reached near the House of Manjeet (petitioner) at village chamar khera then a young boy similar to the particulars told by the secret informer was found standing, who after seeing the raiding party moved towards the opposite direction and when he was restrained and asked about his particulars then he told his name as Manjeet @Meetu son of kuldeep resident of village Chamar khera (present petitioner), ASI Raj kumar conducted the search of said boy and from the bag of the petitioner 2 pistols of 32 bore and one country made pistol of 12 bore were found, prima facie all the weapons were found to be illicit upon which ASI after taking out one 32 bore silver colour pistol from the bag which was containing magazine and it was checked and it was found in an unloaded condition and after checking the said pistol, sketch of the recovered pistol was prepared by ASI Raj Kumar. Similarly, ASI Raj Kumar prepared sketch of all the 3 weapons which were recovered from the petitioner. All the weapons which were recovered were sealed and put in container, the parcels of the same were prepared and they were sealed with seal of RK/1 who prepared the recovery memo of the said weapons which were signed by the accused as well as the witnesses. In this manner petitioner Manjeet had committed an offence under section 25(1-B)(A)/54/59 of Arms Act with regard to which the above noted case FIR was registered.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been implicated in the present case, solely on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the main accused, namely, Manjeet alias Meetu, that too, in his fourth disclosure statement, pursuant to which petitioner was arrested on 14.10.2025.
It is further submitted that no incriminating article or material connecting the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence, was recovered from his possession after his arrest. Thus, involvement of the petitioner in the present case is entirely based upon the disclosure statement of the co-accused, alleging therein that petitioner had supplied the illegal weapons subsequently recovered from the main accused. It is submitted that disclosure statement, is itself, an inadmissible evidence in the eyes of law.
Learned counsel further submits that, except for the aforesaid disclosure statement, there is no other material or evidence available against the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of his involvement in eight other cases under the Arms Act. Since no recovery was effected from the petitioner pursuant to his arrest, learned counsel contends that no useful purpose would be served by keeping him inside jail for an indefinite period. Learned counsel, accordingly, prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case.
On the other hand, learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that petitioner is a habitual offender and, apart from the present case, he is involved in eight other criminal cases, out of which he has already been convicted in two cases by the Courts concerned. It is, therefore, contended that petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail in the present case. Learned State counsel, accordingly, prays for dismissal of the present petition.
This Court has heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has also gone through the record available before it.
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, allegations levelled against the petitioner and the factors noticed here above, particularly the fact that petitioner is inside jail since 14.10.2025 and no incriminating article or material was recovered from his possession at the time of his arrest, this Court finds that the mere fact that petitioner is involved in other criminal cases, or has suffered convictions in two of those cases, by itself, cannot lead to a presumption of his guilt in the present case. Moreover, plea of bail to the petitioner is required to be considered on the basis of the material available against him in the present case.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner inside jail, for an indefinite period. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case.
Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.
Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.
Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
Petition stands disposed of.