Pardeep Kumar Alias Kalu v. State of Haryana

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta-on Sec-ons 406 22.12.2023 Nissing, District Karnal 148, 149, 323, 324, 308, 379-B, 427, 452 & 506 IPC

¶1The pe!!oner incarcerated in the FIR cap!oned above had come up before this Court under Sec!on 483 of Bhara!ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

¶2In paragraph 8 of the bail pe!!on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allega!ons are being taken from the translated copy of FIR annexed with the bail pe!!on as Annexure P-1, which reads as follows: "To S.H.O. Police Staton Nissing, Karnal. Subject: Regarding registraton of F.I.R. Sir, it is respec"ully submi%ed that on 19.12.2023 tme about 8:25-30 I was with my cousin at Power Zone Gym at Gullarpur Road. Then Deepak Lot son of Suresh, Sethi, Ajay son of Shyam Lal, Aryan son of Mahender @ Baba Caste Khani, Rocky son of Shyam Lal, Ravi who all were carrying Gandasi, sword, Farse in their hands and 26-27 boys lassed with weapons entered in the Gym under their leadership: Rohit @ Rohta, Sethi, Deepak, Kalu, Chanderkant with intenton to kill Sonu a%acked with sharp edged weapons. Ravi, Ajay, Rocky, Aryan also a%acked upon Rahul with sharp edged weapons. Deepak Lot has kept hidden pistol on his waist. Rohit @ Rohta and Deepak Lota were speaking loudly in the Gym order/judgment. 1 to these boys to vandalize, on which the remaining boys, out of which some of them have covered their face, destroyed all the Gym and took away Rs.50,800/- and CCTV and DVR. Sethi, Aryan, Sahil Singha brother-in-law of Sethi of Ghraunda and others were involved in destroying & Dacoity and issued threat to kill. The other people who were doing Gym, out of them mobile of some were snatched by Rocky and other boys. Deepak Lot and other raised Lalkara that issued threat that if anybody become witness or will help them, then we will not leave him alive. While leaving the above accused told that this is only lesson and if now run Gym without accompanying us, then lost your lives. Aryan and others damaged all the bikes standing outside the Gym with their weapons and by displaying weapons in open went away. Out of them the most of accused are of Balmiki Bast Nissing. I know them personally, they all are criminal type of persons and have old criminal record. They have politcal shelter, therefore their criminality prevails in the town. They are involved in all type of crimes. They earlier also issued threat many tmes to kill and threat to close the Gym, upon which applicaton was given of quarrel. Protecton be given to us and strict acton be taken against the accused"

¶4The pe!!oner's counsel has referred to Annexures P-2 to P-5 annexed with the bail pe!!on, vide which, bail has been granted to the co-accused, as such, he also seeks bail on the ground of parity with co-accused.

¶5Counsel for the pe!!oner submits that he would have no objec!on in case any stringent condi!ons this Court might put upon the pe!!oner including surrender of fire arms, if any, shall not enter the property of the complainant/vic!m and in case, pe!!oner repeats the offence, where the sentence is prescribed 07 years or more, the State shall may an applica!on for cancella!on of bail. He further contends that pre-trial incarcera!on would cause an irreversible injus!ce to the pe!!oner and his family.

¶6The State's counsel opposes bail on instruc!ons. REASONING:

¶7The co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated

19.12.2024 passed in CRM-M-47318-2024, CRM-M-44186-2024, CRM-M-46495-2024 and CRM-M-47224-2024, vide Annexures P-2 to P-5 respec!vely, as such, the pe!!oner is also en!tled to bail on the ground of parity with his co-accused.

¶8There is sufficient primafacie evidence connec!ng the pe!!oner with the order/judgment. 2 alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarcera!on should not be a replica of post-convic!on sentencing. As per paragraph 6 of the bail pe!!on, the pe!!oner has been in custody since 05.01.2024. As per the custody cer!ficate dated 13.05.2025, the pe!!oner's total custody in this FIR is 01 year, 04 months and 08 days. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allega!ons, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jus!fiability for further pre-trial incarcera!on at this stage.

¶9Without commen!ng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons men!oned above, the pe!!oner makes a case for bail.

¶10Given above, provided the pe!!oner is not required in any other case, the pe!!oner shall be released on bail in the FIR cap!oned above subject to furnishing bonds to the sa!sfac!on of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep!ng the surety, the concerned Court must be sa!sfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶11While furnishing a personal bond, the pe!!oner shall men!on the following personal iden!fica!on details:

¶1AADHAR number

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

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶12This order is subject to the pe!!oner's complying with the following terms.

¶13The pe!!oner shall abide by all statutory bond condi!ons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pe!!oner 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 the Court.

¶14Given the background of allega!ons against the pe!!oner, it becomes paramount to protect the vic!m, members of society, and incapacita!ng the accused would be one of the primary op!ons un!l the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquiJal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restric!on is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence ofJYOTI order/judgment. 3 probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanc!on]. Given the nature of the allega!ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe!!oner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammuni!on, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fiNeen days of release from prison and inform the Inves!gator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the pe!!oner shall be en!tled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquiJal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restric!ng firearms would ins!ll confidence in the vic!m(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repea!ng the offense.

¶15Given the nature of the allega!ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe!!oner shall not enter the property, workplace, and residence of the vic!m un!l the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial are recorded. This Court is imposing this condi!on to rule out any aJempt by the accused to incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the vic!m. Reference be made to Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Inves!ga!on, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna BhaJ v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.

¶16The condi!ons men!oned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also to block the menace of drug abuse. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Pe!!on (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 condi!ons imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be propor!onal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail condi!ons must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, condi!ons that would result in the depriva!on of rights and liber!es must be eschewed."

¶17This bail is condi#onal, and the founda#onal condi#on is that if the pe##oner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an applica#on for cancella#on of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.

¶18Any observa!on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶19A cer!fied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pe!!oner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and aJest it to be a true copy. If the aJes!ng officer order/judgment. 4 wants to verify its authen!city, such an officer can also verify its authen!city and may download and use the downloaded copy for aJes!ng bonds.

¶20Pe--on allowed in terms men!oned above. All pending applica!ons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

14.05.2025 Jyo!-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 14.05.2025 Pardeep Kumar @ Kalu ...Pe!!oner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Ashish Sindher, Advocate, for the pe!!oner. Mr. Naveen Kumar Sheoran, D.A.G., Haryana. ****