Sanjiv @ Banti v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-6750-2021 Decided on : 18.02.2021 Sanjiv @ Banti . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL (Through Video Conferencing) PRESENT: Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Rajiv Goel, DAG, Haryana assisted by ASI Nikita Khattar.

**** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 176, dated 05.06.2020, under Sections 180, 201, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Sections 180 and 201 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Murthal, District Sonepat. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner, who was a building material supplier to the Panchayat, has been falsely implicated in the case in question. He submits that the main accused i.e. Surjeet Singh committed suicide and also left behind a suicide notice, wherein, he mentioned that the petitioner was innocent and had no role to play in the crime in question.

It has been submitted that even otherwise, no case is made out against the petitioner and he has been implicated in the case in hand only with the aid of Section 120-B IPC. Further submits that only allegation against the petitioner is that he received a sum of Rs. 8,34,800/- in his account and there was no material on record to link the aforementioned amount with the crime in question. It has been further submitted that similarly situated co-accused has JAWALA RAM 2021.02.

CRM-M-6750-2021 - 2 - since been extended the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 29th September, 2020, passed in CRM-M-15924-2020 (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel for the petitioner has hence prayed that the petitioner, who has been in custody since 17th October, 2020, be extended the concession of regular bail, as only challan has been presented till date.

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from ASI Nikita Khattar, has submitted that though challan has been presented, however, charges are likely to be framed in the near future. He has further submitted that the petitioner in involved in four other FIRs for offences under Sections 420, 409 IPC etc.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is on bail in one of those cases, while petition for bail is pending consideration in the other FIRs.

Heard.

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I deem it a fit case for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioner, as the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future, more so, in the prevailing conditions due to the outbreak of COVID-19. The petition as such is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE February 18, 2021 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2021.02.19 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh