AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOEL.J (Oral)
Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.314 dated 08.11.2023 registered under Sections 302, 411, 419, 420, 201 and 120-B of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station Rampura, Rewari.
The FIR in question pertains to murder of one Mohan Lal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 10.11.2023. Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR in question. Counsel has further urged that the petitioner had no motive to commit the murder. It is further urged that the prime prosecution witnesses including the complainant stand recorded. Learned counsel has urged that the petitioner is a man of clean antecedents and thus regular bail is prayed for. It has been further submitted that the FSL report in question relied upon by the prosecution, does not connect with the firearm/cartridge recovered at the end of the petitioner viz the bodily injury upon the deceased attributed against him.
Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 17.09.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
The petitioner was arrested on 10.11.2023, wherein after investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 07.02.2024. Total 36 prosecution witnesses have been cited out of which 07 stand examined till date. It is not in dispute before this Court that the prime prosecution witnesses already stand examined. It is not in dispute that the conclusion of trial will take long time. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to the dicta passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494, relevant whereof reads thus:
“18.Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.
19.If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.”
Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, the petitioner not being attributed any specific motive to commit the murder in question, the petitioner already having suffered the incarceration for more than 02 years and 10 months, the petitioner being a man of clean antecedents, only 07 prosecution witnesses out of a total of 36 cited having been examined and there being debatable issues, which would be looked into during the course of trial, this Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
As per custody certificate dated 17.09.2026 the petitioner has suffered incarceration for 02 years, 10 months and 08 days and is not shown to be involved in any other case/FIR.
Suffice to say, the further detention of the petitioner in custody is not required in the facts and circumstances of the case.
In view of above, the petition in hand is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:-
The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
Ordered accordingly.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.