Sonu Alias Vicky v. State of Haryana

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 169 29.04.2024 Central Faridabad, 186, 353, 307, 34, 120-B IPC District Faridabad and 25 of Arms Act (Haryana)

¶1The pettoner incarcerated in the FIR captoned above came before this Court under Secton 483 of Bharatya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

¶2As per paragraph 14 of the bail applicaton and the status report, the pettoner has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station

¶1554 2015 25/54/59 of Arms Act City Bahadurgarh, Jha-jjar

¶2317 2016 379 A, 392, 201, 34 IPC Shivaji Colony, and 25/54/59 of Arms Rohtak Act

¶3179 2019 148, 149, 341, 427, 506 Shivaji Colony, IPC Rohtak

¶477 27.01.2022 148, 149, 323, 452, 392, Shivaji Colony, 379-B IPC & 25/54/59 of Rohtak Arms Act

¶5232 2023 25/54/59 of Arms act Special Cell, Delhi

¶6268 23.08.2023 302, 307, 148, 149, 201, Beri Jhajjar 216, 120-B IPC & 25/54/59 of Arms Act

¶7212 2024 387 IPC Bharat Nagar, West Delhi

¶8150 2024 25 of Arms Act Special Cell, New Delhi

¶9142 2024 385, 387, 120 B IPC Maurya Enclave, order/judgment. 1

¶3The facts and allegatons are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows:

¶11That allegatons in the present case are that, in furtherance of the crime and patrol duty necessary arrangements were made and District Courts Faridabad was put under surveillance by the police team. At about 11:30 a.m. on the said date, a Scorpio car bearing registraton No. DL8CAC3952 was found near District Courts, which stopped as well in front of SI Parveen Yadav and his Team. A boy got down from that car and started walking, who was identfied by the secret informant, to be the wanted criminal Dinesh of Village Ritholi Haryana. Secret informer was sent away and co-accused Dinesh was signaled to be apprehended and, nabbed by the police, who was asked to show his I-Card but instead of doing so, he shouted at his companions si3ng in the car 'police-police' and asked Golu to run the car over the Police Team, who was approaching them from the front as well and the car was tried to be run over SI Vijender Diwach, HC Manish and Constable Parveen with intenton to kill them but they had a miraculous escape and the driver of the Scorpio car, while causing damage to other cars parked nearby, absconded, while co-accused Dinesh was apprehended at the spot, was arrested in the present case, on being found in conscious possession of one pistol and four live cartridges.

¶4The pettoner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditons and contends that further pre-trial incarceraton would cause an irreversible injustce to the pettoner and their family.

¶5The pettoner's counsel submits that the pettoner would have no objecton whatsoever to any stringent conditons that this Court may impose, including that if the pettoner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an applicaton to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdicton over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discreton, to which the pettoner shall have no objecton.

¶6The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to para 14 of the status report, which read as follows: "14. That in the present case, car was tried to be run over SI Vijender Diwach, HC Manish and Constable Parveen with intenton to kill them by order/judgment. 2 the accused persons but they had a miraculous escape and the driver of the Scorpio car, while causing damage to other cars parked nearby, absconded, while co-accused Dinesh was apprehended at the spot. Hence, none of the police official had received any injury, therefore, neither medico-legal examinaton of any police official was got conducted nor any of the police official remained admi<ed in any hospital. No injury has been a<ributed to the pettoner. On the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Golu @ Bijender (Annexure P-3), pettoner/accused was, arrested in the present case. Since, the offence under Secton 307 IPC is a<racted in the present case." REASONING:

¶7It Shall be appropriate to refer to paragraph 12 of the reply, which reads as follows: "12. That role of the pettoner/accused is that, he actvely partcipated in the commission of offence. He was very much present at the spot. On

12.09.2024 pettoner/accused was arrested in pursuance of disclosure statement of co-accused Golu @Bijender. He was already in custody in some other case and producton warrants were issued against him. In pursuance of disclosure statement of pettoner/accused, countrymade pistol was also got recovered by him which further proves his involvement in the commission of offence. Pettoner/accused is a habitual offender as ten more criminal cases are already registered against him, out of which in one criminal case secton 302 IPC is also a<racted. Pettoner/accused is a member of Bhahu gang and said gang is indulged in commission of many heinous crimes. There are serious allegatons against the pettoner/accused."

¶8The pettoner has a massive criminal antecedents and as per the investgaton carried out tll date, he appears to be a member of gangster group. However, the counsel for the pettoner, on instructons, has undertaken that without conceding and admiHng the pettoners will reform and live like a decent human being and would not repeat the offence. This considering the pettoner's criminal antecedents coupled with the assurance made by the pettoner counsel that in case the pettoner repeats the offence, he shall have no objecton if not only this bill is cancelled but also the bails granted earlier are also cancelled. This Court is of the opinion that one more opportunity and rather final opportunity can be given to the pettoner to mend his ways and to order/judgment. 3

¶9There is sufficient primafacie evidence connectng the pettoner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceraton should not be a replica of post-convicton sentencing.

¶10Per paragraph 12 of the bail petton, the pettoner has been in custody since

12.09.2024 Per the custody certficate dated 28.08.2025, the pettoner's total custody in this FIR is 11 months and 17 days.

¶11The law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy, and occupies an important place in the administraton of justce and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have 1commiKed a crime, and presumpton of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal. In deciding bail applicatons an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideraton by the Court is the delay in concluding the trial.—OMen this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultmately acquiKed, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? —Is Artcle 21 of the Consttuton, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Consttuton, not violated in such a case? —Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in 2deciding whether to grant bail. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperatve according to the peculiar facts 3and circumstances of the case. Personal liberty deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value of our consttutonal system recognised under Art. 21 that the curial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually, but judicially with lively 4concern for the cost to the individual and the community. When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Artcle 21 of the 5Consttuton is violated.

¶12Given the pettoner's custody, even the past criminal antecedents will not come in the pettoner's way of geHng out on bail.

¶13Given the above, the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegatons and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justfiability further pre-trial incarceraton at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditons mentoned in this order. 1 Supreme Court of India in Vaman Narain Ghiya v. state of Rajasthan, [E-SCR] ; [2008] 17 SCR 369, Para 16, decided on 12.12.2008. 2Supreme Court of India in State of Kerala v. Raneef, SC 2J [E-SCR]; [2011] 1 SCR 590, Para 4, decided on 03.01.2011. 3 Supreme Court of India in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, SC 2J [E-SCR], Paragraph 127, decided on 02.12.2010. 4 Supreme Court of India in Babu Singh & ors v. State of UP, [E-SCR] P. 777, decided on 31.01.1978. 5 Supreme Court of India in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI , [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 309, Para 26, [E-SCR], JYOTI decided on 23.11.2011. order/judgment. 4

¶14The investgaton indicates that the pettoner is not the main accused, so the pettoner's bail shall not be treated as a precedent for grantng bail to the other co-accused with a higher role.

¶15Without commentng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentoned above, the pettoner makes a case for bail.

¶16Given the above, provided the pettoner is not required in any other case, the pettoner shall be released on bail in the FIR captoned above, subject to furnishing bonds to the satsfacton of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate or duty Magistrate, with or without suretes, with a maximum bond amount not to exceed INR 10,000.

¶17Before acceptng the surety, the concerned Court must be satsfied that if the accused fails to appear, the surety is capable of producing the accused. However, instead of surety, the pettoner may provide a fixed deposit of INR 10,000/-, with a clause that the interest shall not be accumulated in FD, either drawn from a State-owned bank or any bank listed on the Natonal Stock Exchange and/or Bombay Stock Exchange, in favour of the "Chief Judicial Magistrate" of the concerned Sessions Division; or a fixed deposit made in the name of the pettoner, with similar terms and with endorsement from the banker statng that the FD shall not be encumbered or redeemed without the permission of the concerned trial Court, or untl the surety bond has been discharged.

¶18While furnishing a personal bond, the pettoner shall menton the following personal identficaton details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the aKestng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶19This order is subject to the pettoner's complying with the following terms.

¶20The pettoner shall abide by all statutory bond conditons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pettoner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or order/judgment. 5

¶21Given the background of allegatons against the pettoner, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, and incapacitatng the accused would be one of the primary optons untl the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquiKal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearm(s). [This restricton is being imposed based on the preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sancton]. Given the nature of the allegatons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pettoner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammuniton, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fiMeen days from release from prison and inform the Investgator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the pettoner shall be enttled to renew and take it back in case of acquiKal in this case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Restrictng firearms would instll confidence in the society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeatng the offense.

¶22The conditons mentoned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petton (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that "The bail conditons imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportonal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditons must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditons that would result in the deprivaton of rights and libertes must be eschewed."

¶23It is clarified that if the pettoner violates any bail conditon, the State and/or the victm may file an applicaton for bail cancellaton before the trial court, which shall be competent to cancel the bail or add more conditons. Furthermore, if the pettoner moves for deleton or diluton of any bail conditons, the trial court is empowered to do so.

¶24The significant consideraton for grantng bail is that the Court aims to give the pettoner another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citzen. To ensure that the pettoner also abides by the assurance made on the pettoner's behalf by not repeatng the offence or indulging in any crime, it shall be desirable to impose the following additonal conditon.

¶25This bail is conditonal, with the foundatonal conditon being that if the order/judgment. 6 pettoner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State shall file an applicaton to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdicton over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail as well as bail granted in other FIRs, and as per their discreton, they may cancel this bail.

¶26Any observaton made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶27In Amit Rana v. State of Haryana, CRM-18469-2025 [Decided on 05.08.2025), in CRA-D-123-2020], a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in paragraph 13, holds that "To ensure that every person in judicial custody who has been granted bail or whose sentence has been suspended gets back their liberty without any delay, it is appropriate that whenever the bail order or the orders of suspension of sentence are not immediately sent by the Registry, computer systems, or Public Prosecutor, then in such a situaton, to facilitate the immediate restoraton of the liberty granted by any Court, the downloaded copies of all such orders, subject to verificaton, must be accepted by the Court before whom the bail bonds are furnished."

¶28Petition allowed in terms mentoned above. All pending applicatons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

12.09.2025 Jyot-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.09.2025 Pronounced on: 12.09.2025 Sonu @ Vicky ...Pettoner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Sauhard Singh, Advocate for the pettoner. Mr. Atul Gaur, A.A.G, Haryana. ****