AVTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed under Sec. 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.19 dtd. 4/2/2025 under Ss. 115/110/117(2)/190/191(2)/191(3)/324(4)/333/351(3) of BNS and Sec. 3(1) (R)(S) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act registered at Police Station Rori, District Sirsa, Haryana (Annexure P-2). During investigation Sec. 25 of Arms Act and Sec. 109 of BNS have been deleted.

(2.) Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 2/2/2024, the son, husband and nephew of the complainant had brought a trolley of turi (fodder) to her house. At that time, Parhlad, Sanwar Lal, Hanuman had talked to them that the trolley was causing hindrance in their way and had also abused them. Thereafter, the matter was compromised in panchayat on 3/2/2025 and due to enmity, the above said persons threatened to kidnap and kill the son of the complainant. It is further alleged that around 07:30 P.M., the said accused persons parked a vehicle outside the house of the complainant and inflicted injuries upon her husband, her brother-in-law, Jagdish and her son and also fired a bullet and all were got admitted in the hospital. On the intervening night of 03/4/2/2025 at around 01:00/1:30 A.M., the ladies and girls were alone in the house and then the accused persons along with the accused/appellant and 15/20 other unknown persons came to their house in a vehicle and broke open the gate of their house and started vandalizing and also fired shots with an intention to kill and also leaked the gas cylinder in their house and thus, the instant case. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contends that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is behind the bars since 6/2/2025. The investigation of the case is complete. Further, the FIR (supra) has been recorded for three separate incidents. The appellant is accused of participating in the third incident for which there is no medico legal report to corroborate the version containing the third incident. Further, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, the accused party and the complainant including the injured witnesses have effected a compromise. The appellant along with other accused have already filed a petition bearing CRM-M No.39138 of 2025 seeking quashing of the FIR (supra) on the basis of compromise. Mr. Lakhan Paul Garg, Advocate for Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of the complainant/respondent No.2, namely, Maya Devi, and waives service and affirms the factum of compromise and submits that he has no objection if the appellant is enlarged on regular bail.

(3.) The learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in the Court today which is taken on record and per contra, opposes the grant of regular bail to the appellant on the ground that the appellant has actively participated in the malleged incident and his complicity is duly established. He further submits that the appellant is involved in other cases also. However, he could not controvert the fact the investigation of the case is complete and the petition seeking quashing of the FIR (supra) is pending before this Court.