ANKIT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached by way of filing the present petition praying for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.471 dtd. 21/9/2018 under Ss. 148, 149, 302, 323, 307, 325, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station

(2.) As per facts of the case, the FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of the complainant, namely, Pankaj. It was alleged that on 21/9/2018 at about 10:45 a.m., he alongwith Prijabbal while going to coaching centre Chanakya Academy, they were way laid by Ashutosh and other boys, who were carrying sticks, iron rods etc. with them. They all opened attack on the complainant and his companion Prijabbal. Both were given beatings and his friend Prijabbal sustained several injuries on his head and body. The complainant shifted the injured to Pushpanjali Hospital, Rewari for treatment. While escaping from the scene of occurrence, all the accused threatened them to be killed. Request was made to take legal action against all the accused. On the registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. However, during treatment, injured Prijabbal succumbed to his injuries on 4/10/2018 and thus, offence under Sec. 302 IPC was added to the FIR. The Investigation Agency initially filed challan against 13 of the accused, however, the petitioner was not challaned. It is after six years from the occurrence, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused and thus, he was arrested on 26/12/2024. He approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dtd. 25/4/2025. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court praying for grant of bail by way of filing the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case. He has submitted that neither the petitioner was named in the FIR nor he attributed any role in the alleged occurrence. He submits that the Investigating Agency after completion of the investigation, filed challan qua 13 co-accused and there was no whisper regarding the complicity of the petitioner in the same. He submits that surprisingly, the petitioner after six years was arrayed as an accused on the basis of the CCTV footage and he was arrested on 26/12/2024 and challan has been presented. He submits that co-accused, who were challaned, have already been released on bail by learned trial Court/this Court on various dates. He submits that the CCTV footage on the basis of which the petitioner has now been arrayed as an accused, was in possession of the Investigating Agency since beginning and thus, there is no reason to implicate the petitioner at a later stage. He submits that case of the prosecution is virtually without any evidence against the petitioner. He further submits that as per case of the prosecution, the deceased succumbed to his injuries after about 13-14 days of the occurrence and thus, offence under Sec. 302 IPC is also not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and thus, in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, he deserves to be granted regular bail.