Sourabh vs State Of Haryana & Anr.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1990 (for short “the SC/ST Act”) by the appellant challenging the order dated 01.06.2026 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Faridabad in case arising out of FIR No.245 dated 27.06.2024 registered under Sections 302, 307, 506, 323, 201, 34 of IPC (Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC, though not mentioned in the appeal) and Section 25 of Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act at Police Station Sadar Ballabhgarh, whereby an application for grannt of regular bail as filed by the appellant had been ordered to be dismissed.

Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by complainant Sundar Lal alleging therein that on 26.06.2024 at about 7:30-8:00 PM, when his cousin Devendra was going towards the market, he was stopped by the appellant along with co-accused Om Parkash, Shiv, Dheeraj, Dalip Kumar, Dhruv, Mangreram, Shamsher Singh, Jagdish @ Chhotu, Laxman and some other persons. They started firing shots from illegal weapons and killed victim Devendra on the spot. Thereafter, Om Parkash, his sons and other relatives continuously fired shots at the victim. When the people started gathering at the spot, they even pointed their guns towards them and started firing gunshots indiscriminately while using casteist remarks ‘maro saale neech dedh’ and ‘chamars’. One of the bullets, fired by the accused persons, hit Babu Lal on his jaw and injured him critically. Several other persons also received injuries. They were rushed to the hospital. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Post--mortem examination of the dead body of victim Devendra and inquest proceedings were conducted. Coaccused Om Parkash was arrested on 03.07.2024. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. His son, who was juvenile in conflict with law, was also detained on 06.07.2024. The appellant was arrested on 03.07.2024 and got recovered the countrymade pistol used in the crime. He also suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in commission of subject offences. Some of the co-accused were found to be innocent and their naames were kept in Column No.2 of the challan report. Investigation now stands completed and challan has been filed.

The appellant had filed an application for grant of regular bail, which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide order dated 01.06.2026.

It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order dated 01.06.2026 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as while passing the same, the learned Trial Court ignored the fact that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. No specific overt act has been attributed to him. The allegations againsst him are general and omnibus in nature. He is in custody since 03.07.2024, i.e., for a period of over 02 years and 02 months. The chances of conclusion of trial in near future are bleak. The complainant and eye-witness have not supported the prosecution version and have turned hostile. The co-accused Dilip Kumar has been extended benefit of bail. The principle of parity weighs in favor of the appellant. His prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. His further incarceration would not serve any fruitful purpose. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. It is, therefore, argued that the appeal deserves to be allowed and he deserves to be extended benefit of bail.

Written response has been filed by the respondent-State. It is argued by learned State counsel that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as leveled against the appellant, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail.

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

The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object of that unlawful assembly, is further alleged to have participated in the assault at victim Devendra, who had died due to sustaining firearm injuries. The role as attributed to the appellant is that on instruction of the co-accused Omprakash, he had brought a country-made pistol and had fired shots with the same. The said pistol has also been got recovered at his instance. The complainant, Sunder Lal, has since been examined. A copy of his sworn deposition has been placed on record and a perusal of the same reveals that though in his examination-in-chief, he admitted that he had lodged complaint as against the appellant and other accused, but during cross-examination, he is shown to have stated that he was not present at the place of occurrence and had not seen any of the accused while uttering any caste-related remarks or inflicting any injury on any person. He also stated that the complaint was neither written by him nor was bearing his signatures and he did not know about filing of any such complaint. He is also shown to have stated that no bullet was fired upon anyone. The appellant has also placed on record copies of statements of PW-2 Babu Lal, PW-3 Rahul, PW-4 Arjun, and PW-5 Rakesh (as Annexures A-4 to A-7 respectively), who were injured/eye-witnesses to the occurrence, and a perusal of the same reveals that neither of them has implicated the appellant in commission of the subject offences. The appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of more than 02 years and two months. The trial is still likely to take time to conclude. The well-settled proposition of law is that deprivation of the personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not in consonance with the right guaranteed by Article 21 of Constitution of India. Even in cases of serious offences, where some amount of deprivation of personal liberty cannot be avoided, if such period becomes unduly long, the same is against the fairness assured by Article 21 of the Constitution. Howsoever, serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India. Bail is not to be withheld as punishment. Taking into consideration the nature of the evidence which has come on record in the form of testimonies of the material witnesses, the period spent by the appellant in custody, as well as the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.06.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside. The appeal is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

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.