Kapil v. State Of Haryana

   

     




              

  ! " #  !#   

    !"   

 #

 $ !!

 

%


#  !"      &     '  !# $"

%&'

( 
"    On April 08. 2021, the following order had been passed by this court:- )&     $  "

*  +

#      

 #

  #

         #+$   $  $  #   "

  ', &* +-

#$  !  ,,

 #*

      " +  $          +           #



#+$  *   $ "

*+ +  $      "+ $  "   .

 -*   #

$        "     #

            

   $   

/ !

/#01  "  #+$    $  "

   2"     34      

$  $+     

$ $ % #    + $ 5  6 %   & *$7 $ 856&79      + $ +

#   $ 


 " $ *#   # *      + 

++ ** #  

+ $% "  * 

$  $  * $   + 

+   !

:#*  (

;#   56&7 
"

<   #*

 =>&  % "   6  # ?

 2       +  $         '               *          #     

       $$        87   #

             +         

              "  

#9 & +

#         # + 41  ?

  =>& 56&7  



 "   *    $   $ "+ $+: # 

 -   $ "    +      #    * "            #  + * "  &#     # "    

      $     

/    !

/#  01  "   !%#  41  -  $  #  /  *      !

;#  %# $ $ + #

             

0   #     $$ "    $ -  $      

' 

+ "  

#   $ #  " *#  @ Thereafter, on 05.10.2021, Mr.Kuldeep Tiwari, Advocate, had appeared for respondent no.3, i.e. the UHBVNL, and had submitted that in fact the petitioner was absent from duty from 01.09.2020 to 23.11.2020, without getting leave sanctioned from the competent authority and though he had subsequently applied for leave for that period, that application was rejected in view of the fact that the petitioner was a habitual absentee.

( However, thereafter an affidavit dated 04.10.2021 has been filed by the XEN, Division No.-II, UHBNL, Rohtak, stating largely to the aforesaid effect but as regards the application of the petitioner, it is stated that the same was not processed on account of a short fall of medical leave in his leave account, as well as non-regularisation of the absence period. Thereafter however, it has been reiterated that the petitioner is a habitual absentee and was even suspended from service on 25.09.2017, and he has not taken steps to get regularise his "absence period", with 7 years of service still remaining unregularised as duty period, till date. The aforesaid affidavit is ordered to be taken on record.

Though that may be an issue to be seen in any departmental/ service proceedings, the present petition is one by which the petitioner seeks to be admitted to bail in the event of his arrest on account FIR no.457, dated 10.12.2019, having been registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani, alleging therein the commission of an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 174-A of the IPC.

Learned State counsel also refers to an affidavit of the DSP, Bhiwani, dated 01.10.2021, stating to the effect that upon query made from Dr. Raghuvender Chaudhary, it was found that the petitioner was not admitted to the hospital of the aforesaid doctor but was treated on "clinical basis", with bed rest advised first from 01.12.2020 to 15.12.2020, with thereafter, on 15.12.2020, further complete bed rest advised for 15 days.

) A photocopy of the said affidavit has been supplied by the learned State counsel today in court.

Though this court may have otherwise certain reservations with regard to the aforesaid advice of the doctor, with the petitioner never having applied for medical leave for the period in question, however, since this is only a petition seeking that the petitioner may be admitted to bail and he has already been so admitted, with the FIR in question still obviously to proceed on its own merits, without making any comment on the actual merits of the case,      A $+ # $$    



*+,-.%
$

   !#

dharamvir JUDGE .

2 *B  C> .

+ 

&<