RAMPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is second petition filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.428 dtd. 18/11/2014 registered under Ss. 107, 120-B, 121, 121-A, 122, 123, 124, 125, 147, 148, 149, 186, 307, 332, 353, 383, 435, 188, 326-A, 436 IPC and 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sec. 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (in short 'the PDPP Act'), the first having been dismissed as withdrawn on 13/11/2018 (Annexure P-11).

(2.) The primary reason which weighed with the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar while denying the bail on 5/9/2016 (Annexure P-10) was that the allegations against the accused were serious in nature regarding the charges which had been framed. Merely because others persons had been granted the benefit of bail, the principle of parity was not accepted keeping in view the number of persons involved and by noting that it was not possible to scrutinize the role of each individual and it would also prejudice the prosecution case since the State had projected the petitioner as having the main role in the occurrence.

(3.) Senior counsel for the petitioner has stressed on the fact that the petitioner has undergone actual period of 8 years, 8 months and 25 days since he was arrested on 20/11/2014 and has submitted that there are 463 witnesses and only 89 witnesses have been examined. It has been further submitted that out of the said witnesses, 142 accused are similarly situated as the petitioner and out of those, except the petitioner and his son-in-law namely Sanjay, all others are on bail. It is highlighted that the provisions of Sec. 15 and 22C of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short 'UAPA Act') are not made out. Similarly, provisions of Sec. 121A IPC are not made out. It is submitted that there are two other FIRs bearing FIR Nos.429 and 430 in which he has been convicted. This also pertains to the same incident and the prosecution, in overzealousness, had alleged that there are several FIRs and he has been acquitted in FIR Nos.426 and 427. Thus, Article 21 of the Constitution of India is pressed into service and it is held out that the bar under Sec. 43-D(5) would not be attracted and reliance has been placed upon the observations of the Apex Court in the recent judgment in Crl. Appeal No.639 of 2023 Vernon vs. The State of Maharashtra and another decided on 28/7/2023.