Ravinder @ Foji v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:17.02.2022 Ravinder @ Foji ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ......... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH

Present:

Mr. Priyavrat Parashar, Advocate, for petitioner.



  ***** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (ORAL) ase heard via    On 11.02.2022 the following order had been passed by this court:- "ase heard via   


   



 

   !" "#

   $# " "#  % &

'
('

 







% 

    )# " "#  





    && 

  "* 





 &

 



 + 

%&

 & %

 %(
,( !##$-. .#"). -

  /

%



  



 % 

  

  



  0

%

%&

%

 1  2      %&

    

    &  2(

-2-  3&

  

% %

   

 



     

0  %



&/ && 

  &



 

 



   

 &



&

 &% &%



& &     




  Vide this petition, the petitioner seeks the concession of 'regular bail' under the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., upon FIR no.422, dated 21.10.2020, having been registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Jind, alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under Sections 384, 342, 506 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has now been in custody for about 1 year and 3 months, with it being a magisterial trial and the only reason that he has essentially been refused bail by the learned trial court on 11.02.2021, is that 12 more criminal cases registered against him and that a recovery of Rs.20,000/- and a motorcycle was made from him in the context of the present case.

Learned State counsel though otherwise could not seriously oppose the bail application in view of the above recovery allegedly made, however submits that the examination-in-chief of the complainant is complete, with the cross-examination stated to be conducted on 18.01.2022.

Adjourned to 21.01.2022 to determine as to whether the complainants' cross-examination has been conducted or not, with it of course to be observed that if the trial court cannot conduct proceedings due to the ongoing pandemic, this court would still have to seriously consider admitting the petitioner to bail in view of the long period of custody and the stage of the trial, with 4 prosecution witnesses out of 13 having been examined, also looking at the nature

-3of the allegations against the petitioner.



 

%

 

 

   &



"

Today learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even after that date the complainant did not turn up to get cross-examined and that now bailable warrants have been issued to secure his presence by the trial court, with the petitioner having been in custody now for more than 1 year and 4 months. That being so,

&/ && 

  &



  the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court/Duty Magistrate concerned. February 17, 2022 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) dinesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No