Navneet @ Doctor v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 19.03.2021 Navneet alias Doctor ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present:

Mr. Sanjeev Kadian, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Gulzar Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana. ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL) Heard through video conferencing.

This is the second petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.616 dated 23.08.2020 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station HTM Hisar, District Hisar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and he was nominated in the present case only on the disclosure statement of Rohtash, who has since been granted regular bail by this Court in CRM-M-3966-2021 vide order dated 02.03.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that other similarly situated co-accused have been granted regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 16.02.2021, 02.03.2021 and 16.03.2021 passed in CRM-M Nos.6121, 8066 and 11011 of 2021, respectively.

-2Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SHO Sukhjeet Singh, has stated that there are three other criminal cases pending against the petitioner. However, he would further state that the challan already stands presented in the present case. He is further not in a position to deny that similarly situated co-accused have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 16.02.2021, 02.03.2021 and 16.03.2021 passed in CRM-M Nos.6121, 3966, 8066 and 11011 of 2021, respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that he is on bail in the other criminal cases pending against him and the same are not of similar nature.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In view of the above and keeping in view the fact that the similarly situated co-accused as also the person on whose disclosure statement the petitioner has been nominated has been granted regular bail by this Court and that the petitioner has been in custody for over a period of five months and twenty days and that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude especially in view of the prevailing conditions on account of COVID-19 Pandemic and without commenting upon the merits of the case, I deem this to be a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds with heavy surety to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate/Trial Court concerned.

-3However, the Prosecution will always be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found to be misusing the concession of bail in any manner.

It is made clear that any observation made herein shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Disposed off.

( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO March 19, 2021 tripti