Rakesh Puri v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-2564-2024 2024:PHHC:040996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-2564-2024 Date of decision : 21.03.2024 RAKESH PURI ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present:

Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate for Mr. Narinder Singh Sindher, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.521 dated 08.09.2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Chandibagh, District Panipat. 2.

Custody Certificate of the petitioner has been filed today in Court. The same is taken on record.

3.

The gravamen of the allegation against the petitioner is of having supplied fake documents for registration of firm with an intent to claim refund of GST.

4.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is behind bars for more than 2 years, 7 months and 16 days. He further submits that whole of the evidence is in form of documents which are already in possession of the investigating agency and material witnesses already stand Deepak Kumar 2024.03.21 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-2564-2024 2024:PHHC:040996 examined. Apart therefrom most of the witnesses are official in nature and the offences are triable by Magistrate.

5.

State Counsel is not in position to dispute the factual assertions made by counsel for the petitioner based on record. However, he submits that the petitioner has a history of being involved in 4 more cases. 6.

Faced with the situation counsel for the petitioner relies upon 'Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another', 2020 (1) RCR (Criminal) 831 to submit that the involvement of the petitioner in several more cases cannot be a ground to deny bail. Further reliance has been placed upon 'Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of UP (SC)', (2012) 2 SCC 382.

7.

Having heard rival contentions of the parties and after going through records of the case, without commenting on the merits thereof keeping in view the incarceration already suffered by the petitioner, the nature of evidence against him and the stage of trial, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

8.

Needless to say that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. March 21, 2024 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No Deepak Kumar 2024.03.21 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document