Sandeep @ Dabbu 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.196 dated 26.03.2023 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 387, 427, 395, 397, 506, 120B and 201 of IPC at Police Station Sector 10A, Gurugram, District Gurugram

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant Vivek, alleging therein that he used to supply water to two companies existing at Sector 37, Gurugram. He was operating his business from a premises situated in Sector 88, Gurugram, wherein he had also raised construction of some kaccha houses for the residential purposes of his labourers and other employees. His tankers and other vehicles used for carrying water were parked in those premises. Some days back, he had received a call on his cell phone and the caller, while introducing himself as Sumit alias Baba, a member of Tota gang, had extended threat to him to stop supplying water in the companies existing at Sector 37 and otherwise threatened to kill him. He also made demand of extortion money of Rs. 5,000/- on per day basis. The complainant had disconnected the phone. On 25.03.2023, he had gone to Rajasthan for some work, and on the same evening, he received information that about 10–12 persons had barged into his premises had assaulted the night security guards and some other persons, had damaged his vehicles, and had extended threats to kill the complainant if he supplied water further in two particular companies. The employee of the complainant also informed him that some of the assailants were addressing each other with the names of Sumit, Varun, and Gopal, and he could identify them.

After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The accused Gopal alias Lala, Rahul Saini alias Kaale, and others were arrested on 27.03.2023. On interrogation, they suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime. Subsequently, accused Sumit alias Baba was also arrested. Test identification parade of the above-named three accused was conducted and they were identified by the victims. The accused Satpal, who was lodged in jail in connection with some other case, was also joined into investigation of this case and suffered disclosure statement admitting about his involvement in this case. Subsequently, some other accused were also arrested. The petitioner could not be apprehended initially. Proceedings for declaring him as a proclaimed offender were initiated and he was declared as such on 04.02.2025. Subsequently, he was found to be lodged in District Jail, Bhondsi in connection with some other case. He was joined into investigation of this case and was formally arrested on 30.08.2025. In his disclosure statement, he too admitted his active involvement in this case. Investigation now stands concluded.

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 allegedly suffered by the co-accused cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. The material witnesses have since been examined and have not supported the prosecution version as they have turned hostile. The co-accused have been extended benefit of bail. The principle of parity weighs in his favour. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He was declared a proclaimed offender. Some witnesses have been declared hostile in the trial of the co-accused and not in the case of the petitioner. The trial is going on at a proper pace. The antecedents of the petitioner are not clean. There are chances of his absconding again and committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued 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 conspiracy with the co-accused, and then by forming an unlawful assembly with them and in prosecution of common object thereof, he is alleged to have entered the premises of the complainant, damaged his vehicles, assaulted the employees of the complainant, and to have caused hurt to them. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offences as against him. He is also shown to be involved in several other cases. However, on account of these reasons, he cannot be denied benefit of bail. He has suffered incarceration of more than one year. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is a well-settled proposition of law that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre-trial incarceration should not be replica of post-conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the extent of 02 sureties to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions :-

In the eventuality of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the respondent-State shall be at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of the bail.

It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.

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