Neeraj Kumar vs State Of Punjab

Manisha Batra, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:-

As per the allegations, on 01.11.2024, Monu residing in neighbourhood of the complainant Sunny Kumar was firing crackers by using his motorbike in the street. Feeling disturbed, victim Wazir Ram who was father of the complainant had gone outside and had tried to make Monu understand. However, feeling offended, accused Monu accompanied by the present petitioner and the other co-accused and some persons unknown to the complainant opened an assault upon the victim Wazir Ram thereby causing injury with a kara on the head of the victim Wazir Ram. The petitioner struck a blow with an iron rod whereas accused Romi struck blow with danda. The brother of the complainant was also assaulted by the assailants. The victim Wazir Ram was admitted to hospital and was provided treatment. His condition got deteriorated and had died on 03.11.2024.

After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Postmortem examination of the dead body of the victim was conducted. The accused Gursewak Singh @ Monu was arrested on 07.11.2024. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and got recovered an iron karha and sword retained by him at the time of commission of subject offences. The petitioner was arrested on 18.03.2025. Investigation now stands concluded.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The ingredients for commission of offence punishable under Section 103 of BNS are not attracted against him. It was the co-accused Monu who had caused injury on the head of the victim and the only attribution as made to him is only striking a blow with karha on injured Rahul Kumar. This injury has been opined to be simple in nature. No injury on the person of the deceased victim has been attributed to him. The complainant had improved his version subsequently by saying that the petitioner had struck a blow with iron rod on the head of the victim whereas only one injury already attributed to accused Monu has been found on the dead body of the victim. He is in custody since long. The conclusion of trial in near future are bleak. His further incarceration would not serve any fruitful purpose. The co-accused Jasveer Kaur, Gurpreet Kaur, Gurveer Singh and Karan have been extended benefit of bail. Principle of parity weighs in his favour. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner who by forming membership of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object thereof had voluntarily caused injuries to the victim Wazir Ram and to the other injured and had caused death of the victim Wazir Ram. The trial is proceeding in a proper manner and there is nothing to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. The petitioner has also been linked with the offence with the aid of Section 190 of BNS. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

This Court has considered the rival submissions.

The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof, one injury with rod is alleged to have been caused upon the person of the victim Wazir Ram who had succumbed to the said injury and had died during the court of treatment. As per the FSL report, the death had been caused as combined impact of injuries sustained by the victim and diseased condition of lungs, liver and kidney of the victim. The allegations against him are specific in nature. Five witnesses stand examined. It cannot be stated that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. The petitioner has been linked to the acts attributed with the aid of Section 190 of BNS, which has the following ingredients;

From a perusal of the above ingredients, it is apparent that even mere presence in the unlawful assembly but with an active mind to achieve the common object, makes a person vicariously liable for the acts of the unlawful assembly. Under Section 190 of BNS, the liability of the other members, for the offence committed during the continuance of the occurrence rests upon the fact whether the other members knew beforehand that the offence actually committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object or not. Such knowledge can reasonably be collected from the nature of the assembly, the weapon used, the behaviour of the participants at or before the scene of action.

In the instant case, the petitioner along with the co-accused by forming membership of an unlawful assembly is alleged to have caused injuries to the victim Wazir Ram and to the other injured resulting into death of the victim Wazir Ram. The allegations prima facie show his clear involvement/participation in the occurrence while having knowledge that the such offences were likely to be committed in prosecution of common object. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as he along with co-accused stands accused of a heinous crime punishable with capital punishment or life imprisonment. While length of incarceration is a factor that weighs with the Court in considering bail, it cannot overshadow the seriousness of the accusation of murder under Section 103 of BNS. Reference in this context can be had to the observations made in Parmod Kumar Saxena Vs. UOI, 2008(63) ACC (SC), Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC, 242 and State through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 280(SC). It is well-settled proposition of law that grant of bail is a discretionary relief to be granted or denied based on specific facts and circumstance of each case and there cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for grant of bail. The factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment if the accusations entail a conviction and nature of evidence in support of accusations are to be seen. That apart, reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening the material witnesses is also to be weighed. Frivolity of prosecution should always be considered, and it is only the element of genuineness that has to be considered in the matter of grant of bail.

In light of the foregoing legal principles and other circumstances as discussed above, this Court finding no compelling ground to allow this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.