Ravinder Pal Singh v. State Of Haryana

-1230 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 29.02.2024 Ravinder Pal Singh ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. A.S.Barnala, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Addl. AG, Haryana.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral) 1.

This is the second petition filed by the petitioner seeking concession of regular bail in case FIR No.410 dated 09.11.2023 under Sections 188, 201, 272, 308, 328, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 120-B, IPC and 61, 63-A Excise Act registered at Police Station Mullana District Ambala.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case in hand only on the ground that he had supplied the labels, bottles and corks to the co-accused, which were used by them to bottle the illicit liquor allegedly manufactured. Learned counsel submits that even assuming for the sake of arguments though not conceded that the labels, bottles and corks had indeed been manufactured and

-2supplied by the petitioner, it would not in any manner connect him with the manufacture of illicit liquor; more so, since in the FIR itself there was no allegation levelled against the petitioner of having in any manner participated in the manufacture of illicit liquor. Learned counsel has further submitted that since the investigation in the case in hand is complete and challan also stands presented, his further incarceration would serve no useful purpose as trial would take considerable time to conclude, more so, since 51 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution.

3.

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, has not disputed that the only role attributed to the petitioner in the crime in question was of having supplied bottles, labels and corks to the co-accused in which the illicit liquor was then bottled and then sold to various persons. Learned State counsel has also not disputed that investigation in the case in hand is complete and as many as 51 prosecution witnesses have been cited. Learned State counsel has also informed the Court that there are four other cases registered against the petitioner, however, in those cases also, he had only allegedly supplied the bottles, which were then used for bottling the illicit liquor allegedly manufactured by the co-accused. 4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5.

The petitioner has been in custody since 15.11.2023. The

-3investigation in the case in hand is complete as challan stands presented. There are no allegations against the petitioner of having manufactured the illicit liquor.

6.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court deems it fit to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

7.

However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

8.

Needless to add, in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail granted to him, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the same.

29.02.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No