Sonu @ Bachi v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-04.04.2022 SONU @ BACHI ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent *****

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH ***** Present:- Mr. Vikas Bishnoi Godara, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen Kumar Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.

***** KARAMJIT SINGH , J. (Oral) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in a case having FIR No.7 dated 4.1.2020 registered under Sections 323, 353, 395, 397 and 427 IPC at Police Station Bhuna District Fatehabad.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that hat the petitioner is named as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Amit Kumar who has already been granted regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.4.2021. The counsel for petitioner further

( 2 ) contended that the petitioner is in custody since 1.2.2020 and nothing out of the alleged stolen cash was recovered from his possession. Present petition is contested by the State counsel who submitted that the petitioner is having criminal history as he is involved another 39 cases. The State counsel further submitted that even in the present case one pistol and one live cartridge were recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

In the present case the FIR was registered against unknown person who took out an amount of `3,000/- by cutting the shutter of ATM of SBI with the help of gas cutter. The petitioner was nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused Amit Kumar, who has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 28.4.2021. The petitioner was arrested on 1.2.2020 and no cash out of the aforesaid stolen amount was recovered from his possession except one pistol and one live cartridge. After completion of investigation challan has been presented but charges are yet to be framed. Undisputedly, the petitioner is involved in number of other criminal cases but that is no ground to decline the present petition as the other similarly situated persons have already been granted regular bail in the present case. Further this Court is of the view that no purpose will be served by keeping the accused in custody for indefinite period as it will take considerable long for conclusion of trial which is yet to be commenced.

Keeping in view facts and circumstances mentioned above and without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and the

( 3 ) petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. ( KARAMJIT SINGH) 04.04.2022 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No