AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, namely Rahul Kala, in FIR No. 06 dated 11.01.2025, registered under Sections 109(1) (Section 307 IPC), 121(1) (Section 332 IPC), 132 (Section 353 IPC), 221 (Section 186 IPC) and 3(5) (Section 34 IPC) of the BNS, 2023, and Sections 25(6) and 27 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Hansi Sadar, District Hansi, Haryana, during the pendency of the trial.
As per the prosecution version, on 11.01.2025, a police party of Special Staff, Hansi, was on patrol while searching for wanted accused in another case. On the basis of secret information, the police party was informed that Aman alias Ajay and the present petitioner Rahul Kala, who were allegedly involved in a murder case, were present near the gate of Gokul Dham Society, Outer Bypass, Hansi, in a white-coloured Aura car. Two police teams thereafter approached the spot from different sides.
According to the FIR, upon noticing the police party, both accused allegedly opened fire with an intention to kill the police officials. One bullet allegedly hit the bumper of the police vehicle, while another bullet allegedly struck the bulletproof jacket worn by the complainant police officer. The police officials thereafter fired towards the feet of the accused in an attempt to apprehend them. After the firing stopped, both accused were apprehended and were found to have sustained injuries to their legs. A pistol was allegedly found lying near each of them. The petitioner disclosed his name as Rahul son of Krishna, resident of Petwar. The injured accused were immediately taken to Government Hospital, Hansi, for treatment. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner and co-accused, by allegedly firing upon the police party with illegal firearms, obstructed the police officials in discharge of their duties and committed offences under Sections 109(1), 121(1), 132, 221 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 25(6) and 27 of the Arms Act. The investigation has since been completed, the challan has been presented and charges have been framed. The case is presently at the stage of prosecution evidence. As per the latest trial status referred to in the petition, only 1 out of 34 prosecution witnesses had been examined.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 11.01.2025 and has not been attributed any specific firearm shot in the FIR, as the allegation of firing has been made collectively against the petitioner and co-accused. It is further submitted that no police official suffered any bodily injury in the alleged occurrence. The bullets are stated to have hit only the bumper of the police vehicle and the bulletproof jacket of the complainant. The petitioner himself sustained a leg injury during the alleged incident. The investigation stands concluded, the challan has been presented and charges have already been framed. The trial is progressing at a very slow pace and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. Continued pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner, particularly when the investigation is complete, would serve no useful purpose.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Senior DAG, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 11.09.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 01 year 07 months and 24 days.
Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner is accused of opening fire upon the police party with an intention to kill, and the allegations attract serious offences under the BNS as well as Sections 25(6) and 27 of the Arms Act. It is submitted that the petitioner was apprehended at the spot with a country-made pistol lying near him after he allegedly sustained a firearm injury to his leg. It is further submitted that the petitioner is also involved in another criminal case, including offences under Sections 103(1), 109(1) and 333 of the BNS and the Arms Act.
Be that as it may, the petitioner is in custody since 11.01.2025. The allegations against him are that he, along with his co-accused, opened fire upon the police party, during which one bullet allegedly hit the bulletproof jacket of a police official and another hit the bumper of the police vehicle. At the same time, the petitioner himself sustained a firearm injury on his foot during the alleged occurrence. Significantly, no police official suffered any bodily injury in the incident. The investigation already stands concluded, the challan has been presented and charges have been framed. As on date, only 2 out of 34 prosecution witnesses have been examined, indicating that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Thus, keeping in view the period of custody already undergone, the fact that the alleged occurrence is a case of no bodily injury to any police official, and the slow progress of the trial, further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose.
Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:-
1.The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency.
2.The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness.
3.The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court.
4.The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law.
5.The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law.
6.The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change.
7.The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest.