Asin @ Aasin v. State of Haryana and Anr

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 her family members, in the

same house and Both Rinku and evening of 03.0 that they were Janta Colony, D left the house b her husband in abovesaid Asim showing the s accomplices ha vehicle to Khur the vehicle but

3.

Af initiated. Durin were arrested f accused namely day. The appe effect that they sand. Offences Dharampal and village Rajwah family membe conducted. The the place of oc

d her brother-in-law namely, Rin d Yogesh used to do work of fix

06.2023, her brother-Yogesh an telephonically called by one As Dabua Road as he had some wo but did not return till late. At abo nforming that Yogesh and him m who had taken them towards site. He also informed that t ad physically assaulted him and Y rja (U.P.). Rinku had somehow, Yogesh was still in custody of ab fter registration of the FIR, i ng investigation, the co-accused from Khurja on 04.06.2023. On y, Kalu Kumar and Dharampal llant and other accused suffere y had killed Yogesh and had b under Section 302 and 201 of d Kalu Kumar got the dead bo a, District Bulandshahr, U.P. and rs. Post mortem examination e present appellant was arrested ccurrence and got recovered a m

nku had been residing with her. xing tiles. She alleged that on the nd brother-in-law Rinku told her sim at his shop situated at New ork for them. Both of them had out 11 pm, Rinku made a call to mself had been abducted by the s Ballabhgarh on the pretext of the above said Asim and his Yogesh and had taken them in a saved himself by jumping from abductors. investigation proceedings were Shmim Malik and the appellant n their identification two other were also arrested on the same ed disclosure statements to the buried his dead body under the f IPC were added. The accused ody of Yogesh recovered from d the same was identified by his and inquest proceedings were on 10.06.2023. He demarcated motorcycle and a mobile phone . e r w d o e f s a m e t r e e e d m s e d e

used at the tim accused were a some other ac

04.08.2023. Th deceased-Yoge Section 3(2)(v concluded and commission of with Section 3( for grant of re dated 09.04.202

4.

It falsely implicat to harass and h planted upon h husband who a and have not i While passing ignored the fa record. His furt not have any c conclude. Acco the impugned o

me of crime and got effected arrested subsequently. Call deta ccused as well as of the vic he statements of victim Rinku esh were recorded. Offences und va) of SC/ST Act were add d the appellant along with c f offences punishable under Sec

(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The ap egular bail which was dismissed 25 and feeling aggrieved, presen is argued by learned counsel fo ted in his case by the complaina humiliate them due to party frac him. Neither eye witness Rinku are material witnesses have sup implicated in the subject crime the impugned order dated 09.0 act that no incriminating evide ther incarceration would not ser criminal antecedents. The trial ordingly, it is urged that he dese order is liable to be set aside.

recovery of some money. Co-ails record of cell phone of the, ctim Rinku were obtained on and Ramesh Chand father of der Sections 323, 364 of IPC and ded. Investigation now stands co-accused is facing trial for ctions 302. 323, 201, 364 read ppellant had filed an application d by the trial Court vide order nt appeal has been filed. or the appellant that he has been ant in collusion with Police only ction. A false recovery has been u nor the complainant and her pported the prosecution version e. He is in custody since long.

04.2025, the learned trial Court ence against him has come on rve any useful purpose. He does will take considerable time to erves to be released on bail and - , n f d s r d n r n y n r n . t n s o d

5.

Pe learned counse allegations aga phone of the ap had shared call of his cell phon place of murde Reema and vic there are other argued that the

6.

Ri

7.

Th alleged to have further alleged Rinku had man and the co-accu of sworn depo Reema-compla of the same sh regard to abduc they did not im commission of there are other location of cel

er contra, it is argued by lear el for the complainant that t ainst the appellant. The call det ppellant has been collected and t ls at the relevant time with the c ne was found to be the place o er of the victim at the relevant ctim Rinku might have not supp r circumstances to connect him appeal does not deserve to be al val submissions of the parties ha he appellant by hatching a con e abducted the victims Yogesh an to have assaulted them. As per naged to flee but victim Yogesh used. The counsel for the appell sitions of PW-1 Rinku who is inant and PW-3 Malkhan Singh hows that though they supporte ction of the victims and then k mplicate the present appellant f the subject offences. Howeve circumstances in the form of d ll phones of the victim as wel

rned State counsel assisted by there are serious and specific tails record and location of cell the same show that the appellant co-accused Guddu. The location f kidnapping and then from the point of time. The complainant ported the prosecution case but with the crime. It is therefore, lowed. ave been heard. nspiracy with the co-accused is and Rinku on the fateful day and the prosecution case, the victim had been killed by the appellant lant had placed on record copies the one of the victims, PW-2 h who is her husband. A perusal ed the prosecution version with killing of the victim Yogesh but or either of the co-accused in er, as per the prosecution case, details of call details record and ll as the appellant showing his y c l t n e t t , s d m t s l h t n , d s

CRA-S No.1476 of 2025 -5-

presence at the spot at the relevant time. He was even named in the FIR, the allegations against him are quite grave. Keeping in view the nature of these allegations, the fact that only on the basis of hostile testimonies of the material witnesses, the innocence of the appellant cannot be assumed and further in view of the above discussed facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶8$tois,oho%ever,oclarifiedothatoobservationso(adeohereinaboveoshallo notobeoconstruedoasoanoe&'ressionoofoo'inionoono(eritsoofotheocase.o !.o o Sinceotheo(ainocaseoisodis'osedoof,o'endin)oa''lication,oifoanyo alsoostandsodis'osedoof.

(MANISHA BATRA)

09.05.2025 JUDGE Jyoti-IV Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 08.05.2025 Pronounced on 09.05.2025 ASIN @ AASIN …. Appellant Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER …. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present : Mr. Baljeet Beniwal, Advocate for the appellant. Ms.oSheenuoSura,oD.A.G.,oHaryana.o o Ms. Alisha Soni, Advocate for respondent No.2 ****