Amit Alias Raju Alias Flud v. State of Haryana

MANISHA BATRA, J. (oral)

¶1The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14 A of the ScheduledoCastesoandoScheduledoTribeso(PreventionoofoAtrocities)oAct,o !"!o(foro short#theo SC/STo Act), challenging the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad in case arising out of FIR No.281 dated 04.06.2023 registered under Sections 365 and 120-B of IPC, (Sections 323, 364, 302, 201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act), at Police Station Saran, District Faridabad, whereby, an application for grant of regular bail as filed by the appellant had been dismissed.

¶2Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the complainant-Reema alleging therein that she along with his family members was residing in a rented accommodation at village Saran. Her brother-Yogesh was also residing as a tenant with his family members, in the

CRA-S No.447 of 2025 -2-

same house and her brother-in-law namely, Rinku had been residing with her. Both Rinku and Yogesh used to do work of fixing tiles. She alleged that on the evening of 03.06.2023, her brother-Yogesh and brother-in-law Rinku told her that they were telephonically called by one Asim at his shop situated at New Janta Colony, Dabua Road as he had some work for them. Both of them had left the house but did not return till late. At about 11 pm, Rinku made a call to her husband informing that Yogesh and himself had been abducted by the abovesaid Asim who had taken them towards Ballabhgarh on the pretext of showing the site. He also informed that the above said Asim and his accomplices had physically assaulted him and Yogesh and had taken them in a vehicle to Khurja (U.P.). Rinku had somehow, saved himself by jumping from the vehicle but Yogesh was still in custody of abductors.

¶3After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. During the investigation, the co-accused Shmim Malik and the appellant were arrested from Khurja on 04.06.2023. On their identification and two other accused namely, Kalu Kumar and Dharampal was also arrested on the same day. The appellant and other accused suffered disclosure statements to the effect that they had killed Yogesh and had buried his dead body under the sand. Offences under Section 302 and 201 of IPC were added. The accused Dharampal and Kalu Kumar got the dead body of Yogesh recovered from village Rajwaha, District Bulandshahr, U.P. and the same was identified by his family members. Post mortem examination and inquest proceedings were conducted. The appellant got recovered an amount of `1500/- and demarcated the place of occurrence. The other co-accused were involved in the occurrence

were also arrest the father of th appellant along deceased belon IPC and Sectio 365 of IPC was with co-accuse Sections 302. 3 appellant had fi by the trial Cou appeal has been

4.

It i order is not sus trial Court faile injury on the pe husband and th they have not im in custody sinc The trial would crime has not order is liable to

5.

Pe respondent No appellant. His

ted. On 04.08.2023, statements o e deceased Yogesh were recorde g with co-accused had uttered nged to the schedule caste. Offe on 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act were ad s deleted. Investigation stands co ed is facing trial for commission 323, 201, 364 read with Section filed an application for grant of re urt vide order dated 22.01.2025 n filed. is argued by learned counsel for stainable in the eyes of law as w ed to observe that he had been fa erson of victim had been attribut he eye witness/victim Rinku ha mplicated the appellant in comm ce long. His further incarceration d take considerable time to con been established. Accordingly, o be set aside and the appeal des er contra, learned State counsel o.2 has argued that there are complicity in the crime stands

of Rinku, Ramesh Chand who is ed wherein they alleged that the caste derogatory remarks. The ences under Section 323, 364 of dded and offence under Section oncluded and the appellant along n of offences punishable under 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The egular bail which was dismissed 5 and feeling aggrieved, present r the appellant that the impugned while passing the same, learned alsely implicated in this case. No ted to him. The complainant, her ave already been examined and mission of subject offences. He is n would not serve any purpose. nclude. His participation in the it is urged that the impugned serves to be accepted. assisted by learned counsel for grave allegations against the s established from the material s e e f n g r e d t d d o r d s . e d r e l

collected during deserve to be al

6.

Ri

7.

Th with the co-acc alleged to hav murder of the disappearance copies of swor victims, PW-2 complainant. A deposed that on along with Yog assaulted but h himself found directions. He d had abducted h to be cross ex evidence appea complainant PW shown to have turned hostile. which as such dead body of th

g the investigation. It is therefor llowed. val submissions raised by the pa he appellant is alleged to have cused and to have abducted the e assaulted them. As per furth e victims Yogesh and concea of evidence of murder. The a rn depositions recorded by PW Reema and PW-3 Malkhan Sin A perusal of testimony of PW-1 n 03.06.2024, on calling of one gesh and was taken to some unk he further stated that while on th opportunity and jumped from th denied that the appellant and co him and assaulted him. He was d xamined by learned Public Pr ars to have been extracted from W-2 Reema and her husband supported the prosecution case a They have not implicated the emerges that the appellant was he victim recovered. The trial is

re, argued that the appeal do not arties have been heard. hatched a criminal conspiracy e victim Yogesh and Rinku and her allegations, they committed aled his dead body to cause appellant has placed on record W-1 Rinku who was one of the ngh who is the husband of the 1 Rinku reveals that though he e unknown person, he had gone known place and that they were he way, the victim Yogesh and he car and they ran in different o-accused were the persons who declared hostile and was allowed rosecutor but no incriminating m his testimony. Similarly, the PW-3 Malkhan Singh are not at all and both of them have also e appellant at all. The position not the person who had got the likely to take time to conclude. t y d d e d e e e e e d t o d g e t o n e .

Keeping in view of testimonies debatable quest appellant. As su the appellant. A the released on personal and su however, clarif expression of o found to be inv cancellation of

8.

Sin also stands disp

09.05.2025 Jyoti-IV

w the nature of the evidence that of PW-1 to PW-3, this Court tion as to whether the subject o uch, a case is made out at this s Accordingly, the appeal is allow n bail during the pendency of th urety bonds to the satisfaction fied that nothing discussed abov opinion on the merits of the cas volved in any other offence, the r bail in this case. nce the main case is disposed posed of.

(M

:

t has come on record in the form t is of the opinion that it is a offences were committed by the stage to extend benefit of bail to wed and appellant is ordered to he trial subject to his furnishing of the learned trial Court. It is, ve shall be considered to be an se. Further, in case, appellant is respondents are at liberty to seek of, pending application, if any MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE s/No. s/No m a e o o g , n s k y

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 08.05.2025 Date of decision : 09.05.2025 AMIT ALIAS RAJU ALIAS FLUD …. Appellant Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER …. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present : Mr. B.K. Majoka, Advocate for the appellant. Ms.oSheenuoSura,oD.A.G.,oHaryana. Ms. Alisha Soni, Advocate for respondent No.2. ****