Nekpal vs State Of Haryana

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.114 dated 09.04.2024 registered under Sections 201, 302, 34, 120B and 379 of IPC at Police Station Kasola, District Rewari.

The adumbrated facts as emanating from the record are that on 9th April 2024, on receipt of a telephonic information about the dead body of an unknown person lying at Sangwari flyover, service road leading from Jaipur to Delhi, a police party had reached there and dead body of a person whose limbs were tied, was found lying in the heap of cement blocks under the flyover. The complainant-Shyampat Singh submitted a written complaint that he had found the dead body while going towards his workshop and crossing the under-bridge. A case under Section 302 of IPC was registered. The dead body was identified to be that of one Pardeep, resident of District Kathua, Jammu & Kashmir. It was handed over to the legal heirs. Post-mortem examination of the same was conducted.

During the course of investigation, call details of the mobile phone of the victim had been checked and it was found that the mobile phone of the victim was being used by one Rajendra. The said Rajendra was joined into investigation and he disclosed that he had purchased the mobile phone belonging to the deceased from one Satbir who was running a mobile repair shop. Statement of the said Satbir was recorded who disclosed that on 10.04.2024, the petitioner had given the above said mobile phone for repairing purposes and then had sold the same to him for a sum of Rs. 2,500/-, which was then sold by him to the above-named Rajendra. The petitioner was nominated as an accused. He was arrested on 15.04.2024. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the murder of the victim. On his interrogation, the accused Nanhe Khan and Nihal Singh were also nominated as accused and were also arrested. Offences under Sections 379 and 120-B of IPC were added. It was revealed that a quarrel had taken place between the victim and the petitioner, who along with co-accused Nihal had committed murder of the victim and then, in connivance with accused Nanhe Khan, had thrown the dead body of the victim under the flyover to cause destruction of evidence of offence of murder of the victim. The truck used in the crime had also been left near Yadav Dhaba, National Highway No.48. The said truck was recovered at the instance of the petitioner and co-accused. The place of occurrence was demarcated by the petitioner and co-accused Nanhe Khan. Investigation now stands completed.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR. The disclosure statements of the co-accused as suffered against him cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. The co-accused Nanhe Khan has been extended benefit of bail. Principle of parity weighs in his favour. His antecedents are clean. He is in custody since 15.04.2024. Trial will take time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any fruitful purpose. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence. PW Satbir, who was alleged witness to purchase of the cell phone of the victim from the petitioner, has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution version. It is, therefore, urged that he deserves to be extended benefit of bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the fact that the trial is going on at a proper pace as most of the prosecution witnesses stand examined, and the attendant facts, the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

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

The petitioner, along with the co-accused, is alleged to have committed the murder of the victim on the intervening night of 7th/8th April 2024 and is further alleged to have thrown his dead body to cause disappearance of evidence of offence of the murder. No doubt, PW Satbir, who had disclosed that the cell phone of the victim had been sold by the petitioner to him, has not supported the prosecution version. However, there is other incriminating material as against the petitioner on record. It cannot be stated that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the trial since 18 out of 23 prosecution witnesses already stand examined. The case of the petitioner cannot be stated to be at parity with the case of co-accused Nanne Khan, who has been extended benefit of bail, as he has not been alleged to be the assailant of the victim. The allegations against the petitioner are quite serious inin nature. 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 circumstances of each case. 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. The well settled proposition of law is that mere prolonged period of custody or the fact that the trial is likely to take time by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration are not sufficient grounds for enlarging an accused on bail, when the offence alleged is serious. 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). Taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations and the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. Accordingly, finding no compelling ground to allow the present petition, the same is dismissed.

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 disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.