Manish v. State of Haryana

MANISHA BATRA, J. (oral)

1.    The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:- FIR No.  Date  Police Station  Sections 699  02.11.2022  Bhiwani Sadar,  120-B, 148, 149, 302, 341 of IPC, 1860 District Bhiwani  (Sections 114, 201, 404, of IPC, 1860 added during investigation)

2.     Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that on 02.11.2022, on receipt of an information regarding dead body of one person lying in the fields, a police party rushed towards the spot, where the complainant- Pinky wife of the deceased Surinder Singh was found present who submitted a written complaint alleging therein that on the evening of 31.10.2022, an altercation had taken place between her husband and Rajesh and Ajay both sons of Sajram and one Bijender@ Bali, while he (her husband) was working in his fields. On 01.11.2022, her husband had gone to the fields on his motorcycle. At about 11:00 PM, she received information about the dead body of her husband lying therein and on reaching at the spot, marks of

CRM-M No.31420 of 2024 -2-

injuries on husban!4s 'or)us wer &oun!. ,he )raye! &or taking a'tion against the 'ul)rits. A&ter registration o& FIR, in(estigation )ro'ee!ings were initiate!. In5uest )ro'ee!ings were also 'on!u'te!. Footages &ro  the 00T6 'a era installe! in the (i'inity were 'olle'te! showing the (i'ti  entering into his &iel!s on the night o& *1.11.$*$$. The a''use! Naresh, Rajesh an! Bijender@ Bali  were  arreste!  on  *..11.$*$$.  They  su&&ere!  !is'losure  state ents a! itting their in(ol(e ent in the subje't 'ri e an! !e ar'ate! the )la'e o& o''urren'e. The accused Naresh and Rajesh suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the subject crime and also about complicity of the present petitioner. In pursuance of their disclosure statements, the above named three accused also got effected recovery of incriminating material. Offences under Sections 114, 201, 314 and 405 of IPC were added. The present petitioner was arrested on 08.11.2022. He too, suffered disclosure statement thereby, admitting that he along with the co-accused who formed membership of unlawful assembly in prosecution thereof, had assaulted the victim and killed him.

¶3As per the further allegations, the call detailed record of the accused was also obtained revealing that the accused Manoj @ Moza and Naresh had given telephonic information regarding the presence of the victim in office on the fateful day to the present petitioner who along with other accused had gone there and had committed murder of the victim and then had thrown his dead body into the field of one Hawa Singh. Investigation has since been completed. The challan stands presented and the petitioner along with co-accused is facing trial for commission of the aforementioned offences. He had moved an application for grant of regular bail which was dismissed by the CRM-M No.31

Court of learn

19.04.2023.

4.

It falsely implicat accused which him while com the occurrence attributed to him whose case wa likely to take ti of bail.Therefor

5.

Sta record. Copy of

6.

Pe learned counse the petitioner a co-accused and he along with t precipitator of fateful day, he the co-accused record of the ca shows that on with the petitio victim and his d 1420 of 2024 ned Additional Sessions Judg is argued by learned counsel for ted in this case on the basis of cannot be considered to be lega mmitting murder of the victim. In e. No specific injury on the p m. The co-accused Bijender @ B as on same footing, have been e ime. On the ground of parity, he re, it is urged that the petition de atus report filed on behalf of th f the same has been supplied to c er contra, it is argued by lear l for the complainant that there as he formed membership of an d in prosecution of common obje them had committed murder of the crime as he had inimical re had reached at the place of occu and committed the murder of t all made by one Lilu to the peti his mobile phone, witness Sur oner and the petitioner had told dead body was lying in the land

ge, Bhiwani vide order dated r the petitioner that he has been disclosure statements of the co-ally admissibly. No one had seen n fact, there is no eye witness to person of the victim has been Bali, Naresh and Manoj @Moza extended benefit of bail. Trial is deserves to be extended benefit eserves to be allowed. he respondent-State is taken on counsel opposite. rned State counsel assisted by e are serious allegations against n unlawful assembly along with ection of that unlawful assembly, the victim. In fact, he was the elations with the victim. On the urrence on information given by the victim. It is argued that the itioner has been retrieved which resh Kumar had a conversation d him that he had finished the d of the Hawa Singh and that he d n - n o n a s t n y t h , e e y e h n e e CRM-M No.31

had extended m his father that h the petitioner complicity in th it is argued that

7.

I h

8.

Th membership of alleged to have giving injuries conversation m shortly after the as per which, th victim. The all trial is going a would be any u as made above accused. Keepi the quantum o facts and circum of the consider Accordingly, th

02.09.2024 Jyoti-IV

1420 of 2024 many blows with danda to the vi had been made by the victim. W could not be treated at parit he subject crime stands establish t the petition does not deserve to have heard learned counsel for th he petitioner along with the c f an unlawful assembly and in e committed murder of the vic to him repeatedly with a da made between the petitioner and e incident has been collected du he petitioner had admitted his in legations against the petitioner a at proper pace. There is nothing undue delay in conclusion of the e, the petitioner can not be clai ing in view the nature of the alle f sentence which the convictio mstance but without commenting red opinion that the petition do he same is dismissed. (M

:

ctim to take revenge of insult of While submitting that the case of ty with the co-accused as his hed from call detail record also, be allowed. he parties at considerable length. co-accused is alleged to form n pursuance of the same, he is ctim along with co-accused by anda. Call detail record of the d the Suresh Kumar, co-villager uring the course of investigation nvolvement in the murder of the are quite serious in nature. The g on record to show that there same. In view of the discussion im to be at parity with the co-egations as levelled against him, n may entail and the attendant g on the merits of the case, I am oes not deserve to be allowed. MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE s/No. s/No f f s , m s y e r n e e e n - , t m .

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 218 CRM-M No.31420 of 2024 Date of decision: 02.09.2024 MANISH …. Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA …. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present : Mr. Rajesh Dhankar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, A.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate for the complainant. ****