← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/3056/2021allowed

Monu v. State Of Haryana

2021-02-10Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Decided on: 10.02.2021 Monu ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN Present :

Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Vijay Dahiya, Advocate for the complainant. ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') in FIR No.0558 dated 16.12.2020, for offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') (Sections 325 and 120-B IPC and 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, added later) registered at Police Station Gohana City, District Sonepat.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially not named in the FIR. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 29.01.2020 passed in CRM-M No.3445 of 2021, wherein the co-accused of the petitioner namely Vikas and another, have been granted the concession of regular bail. The operative part of the said order, reads as under:- "Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as

per allegations in the FIR, registered at the instance of Sanjay, on a previous occasion, about two months ago, he had gone to Village Gangeshar, where an altercation took place between him and co-accused Rajender, however, the matter was settled. On the date of incident, Rajender along with his son Bholu and 2-3 other persons, on motorcycles, came and caused injuries to the victim. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 Vikas is not named in the FIR and allegations against petitioner No.2 are of causing simple injury. It is also submitted that both the petitioners are in custody since 21.12.2020 and no motive is attributed to them. Learned counsel further submits that one of the co-accused namely Rinku has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail vide order dated 18.01.2021 passed in CRM-M-2395-2021.

Learned State counsel has not disputed the factual position.

Without commenting anything on merits of the case, considering the allegations in the FIR against the petitioners, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing their bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned."

Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that, in fact, it is a case of the complainant that he had an enmity with the coaccused Rajinder Pandit and a dispute arose 02 months ago, which was later on compromised, however, keeping a grudge in his mind, Rajender and his son Rahul @ Bholu, caused injuries to the petitioner alog with Amit and Deepak @ Monty. It is further submitted that the name of the petitioner later on, surfaced in the disclosure statement of the coaccused and one of the co-accused of the petitioner namely Rinku has

also been granted the concession of anticipatory bail vide order dated 18.01.2021 passed in CRM-M No.2395 of 2021.

Counsel for the State assisted by counsel for the complainant has not disputed the factual position but opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that apart from causing injuries to the victim, the accused have also committed the offence under Sections 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Without commenting anything on merits of the case, considering the fact that the co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted the concession of regular bail; the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and the conclusion of the trial will take some time due to COVID-19 situation, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail of the petitioner, in case he is found involved in any other case or misusing the concession of bail, in any manner. (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) JUDGE 10.02.2021 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No