Mandeep @ Mandhu vs State of Haryana

MANISHA BATRA, J.

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.73 dated 04.05.2023 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 379, 302, 427, 285 of IPC (Sections 212 and 120B of IPC added later on) and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station Dhand, District Kaithal.

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant-Pyara Singh, alleging that his nephew Sitaram @ Satish was engaged in the business of property dealing in partnership with one Parveen, brother of Jitender @ Gogi. A case was registered in the year 2019 on the complaint of the aforesaid Jitender @ Gogi at Police Station Dhand, and Sitaram @ Satish had been providing assistance to Jitender @ Gogi. The members of the rival party consisting of Ranjit Singh @ Marku, Rahul and Baljeet @ Kala, had been pressurizing Satish to not to help the above-named Jitender @ Gogi, and another case was registered against them as they had committed the murder of one Sandeep on 02.07.2019. He alleged that on 18.04.2023, his nephew i.e. the victim Sitaram had accompanied Rahul to the District Courts, Kurukshetra, to attend the hearing of the case of murder of Sandeep, and at that time, accused Ranjit Singh @ Marku, Rahul and Parveen had proclaimed that they would get the victim killed. He further alleged that on 03.05.2023, he had gone to meet his brother Ramdiya and when he left the house of his brother and had reached near the corner of the street, he saw that the victim Sita Ram @ Satish was standing outside his scorpio vehicle and was having conversation with someone on his mobile phone. At the same time, accused Kapil, Mandeep i.e. the present petitioner and Anmol reached there, accompanied by one unknown person, carrying weapons in their hands, and were seen rushing towards the vehicle of the victim. Simultaneously, Baljeet @ Kala and Ajay Rathore along with one unknown person reached there and they damaged the window panes of the vehicle of the complainant. Accused Anmol @ Sunny threw red chilly powder in the eyes of Sita Ram. He raised alarm and rushed towards the rear seat of the vehicle, however, he was assaulted by the assailants, who caused injuries to him with the weapons carried by them. The petitioner told the other assailants to teach him lesson for handling (pairvi) the proceedings of the Court in others cases and he should not be escaped live today. Rescue alarm was raised by the complainant and Kapil. However, the assailants fired three shots with a pistol upon the victim and then fled away. The victim Sitaram @ Satish succumbed to the injuries. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted.

As per the further allegations, the petitioner, Baljeet @ Kala and Anmol @ Sunny were arrested on 07.05.2023. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime on the basis of which, Ranjeet, Abhi, Aman, Akash @ Kashi, Rajinder @ Jinder, Baljeet @ Kala, Ajay and Vikas @ Budli and some other co-accused were nominated as additional accused. The petitioner disclosed that accused Abhi had done recce of the victim. Co-accused Abhay @ Abhi was arrested on 10.05.2023. He suffered disclosure statement admitting that he alongwith the petitioner along with co-accused Anmol, Baljeet @ Kala and Vikas had hatched a conspiracy for murder of the victim. In pursuance of that conspiracy, they had done recce of deceased Sitaram @ Satish. On the night of 03.05.2023 in pursuance of the conspiracy and as per instructions of the petitioner, he had remained present near the liquor vend of the victim Satish and when Satish left his office in his scorpio vehicle, he had given intimation about the said fact to co-accused Ajay who had subsequently killed the victim. Investigation now stands completed and the petitioner alongwith the co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. No recovery has been effected from him. The petitioner is in custody since 07.05.2023. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. Trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 05 out of 32 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The eye-witnesses Pyara Singh-complainant and Kapil have not implicated the petitioner or the co-accused in the commission of the subject offences and have turned hostile. There is no material to link him with the allegations of assaulting the victim. The co-accused Baljeet @ Kala, Ranjit Singh @ Marku, Aman Kumar, Anmol @ Sunny and Rahul Pawar have been extended benefit of bail. Principle of parity weighs in his favour. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserve to be released on bail.

Learned State counsel has argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner alongwith the co-accused hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the victim and on his instructions recce of the victim was done. The window of the vehicle of the victim was broken by the petitioner with iron hammer and he has also exhorted the co-accused to teach him a lesson. His case is different from the co-accused, who have been extended benefit of bail. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy with the co-accused to eliminate the victim Sitaram @ Satish and it was in pursuance of that conspiracy, that the victim had been killed by firing shots upon him on the fateful day. The petitioner was named in the FIR. However, the eye-witnesses, complainant-Pyara Singh and Kapil have since been examined before the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record certified copies of testimonies of these witnesses. Complainant-Pyara Singh is shown to have stated that on the fateful day, he could not see the assailants as there was no light, and the street was dark. Further, he deposed that he has not seen the petitioner causing injuries to the victim and the co-accused. This witness had been declared hostile and allowed to be cross examined by learned public prosecutor but is shown to have maintained the same stand, thereby exonerating the petitioner from the allegations as levelled against him. Further, eye-witness Kapil deposed before the Trial Court that, being a co-villager, he knew the petitioner and affirmed that neither the petitioner nor the co-accused committed any offence. He was also declared hostile and cross-examined, however, he firmly adhered to the testimony. Taking into consideration the nature of the evidence which has come on record in the form of testimonies of the most material witnesses i.e. the complainant and eye-witness Kapil, the period spent by the petitioner in custody and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of release on bail in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.

It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.