AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-
The instant one is the third petition as filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.1268 dated 02.12.2023 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 201, 341, 307, 302, 427, 506 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 25(1-B) (a), 27 and 25(6) of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Hisar Sadar, District Hisar. The first petition as filed by the petitioner bearing CRM-M-4006-2025 had been dismissed vide order dated 02.04.2025 and the second petition bearing CRM-M-58337-2025 had been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.10.2025.
It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He has undergone incarceration for a period of more than 02 years. No specific role has been attributed to him. The trial has not progressed much and only 04 out of 55 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. PW-1 Surender, a material witness has not supported the prosecution version and has turned hostile. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a reason afresh to him to seek concession of bail. The role attributed to him is not of the principal assailant. No recovery has been effected from him. The injured eye-witness PW-3 Ajay has also not implicated him in commission of subject offences. It is, therefore, argued 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, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail.
This Court has considered the rival submissions.
The petitioner is alleged to have supplied the weapon of offence used at the time of occurrence to the assailants, who had committed the murder of victim Vikas @ KC. He has been in custody for a period of more than 02 years. The chances of conclusion of trial in near future are bleak as only 04 out of 55 witnesses have been examined so far. The role attributed to the petitioner is limited to facilitating of illegal procurement of firearms and is distinct from the principal homicidal act. The linkage sought to be established between him and the act of supply of arms rests on disclosure statement of the co-accused and circumstantial inferences which is that of a conduit or facilitator in the purported procurement of arms and is distinct and remote offence from the direct commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. It is only on thorough assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that any definite conclusion qua involvement of the petitioner in commission of subject offence can be drawn. In view of the discussion as made above particularly the limited role as prescribed to the petitioner, the period spent by him in custody and the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that continued detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. 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 satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to the following conditions:-
The petitioner shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his presence is exempted by specific order of the Court.
He shall not tamper with evidence or attempt to influence witnesses in any manner.
He shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, PAN Card if any and details of his mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times.
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 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.