Bharat Singh v. State Of Haryana

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:- 04.03.2024 Bharat Singh ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Manoj Kumar Taya, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana.

***** FIR NO.

DATE POLICE STATION OFFENCES 24.06.2023 Sectors 32-33, Karnal 384, 387 IPC (Sections 201, 120-B IPC, 25 Arms Act added later on) GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral) 1.

The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in respect of aforementioned FIR. 2.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Brij Bhushan Gupta wherein it is alleged that he is working as a commission agent in Grain Market, Taraori, Karnal and on 23.6.2023 he received a WhatsApp call on his mobile number 9896239641 and the caller identified himself as Goldy

- 2 - Brar and demanded a ransom of Rs.1.5 crores. It is alleged that the said caller made calls from 2 different phone numbers. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that since the main accused Raman has already been released on regular bail and challan already stands presented, petitioner also deserves the same concession. 4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submits that during the course of investigation, it has been found that one of the phone numbers from which the calls were made belongs to the petitioner. Learned State counsel has however, informed that the petitioner as on date has been behind bars since the last about 7 months and that although challan stands presented but charges are yet to be framed and as many as 21 PWs have been cited.

5.

This Court has considered the rival submissions addressed before this Court.

6.

The petitioner is not named in the FIR but is sought to be nominated on the basis of a WhatsApp call, stated to have been made by the petitioner. Learned counsel is however, disputing the same on the ground that the phone number in question does not belong to him. 7.

Without commenting anything as regards the merits of the case but while noticing that the petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of 7 months and that trial has not even commenced till date and while also noticing that co-accused has already been granted bail, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner also deserves the concession of bail. The petition, as such, is accepted and

- 3 - the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 8.

Application bearing No. CRM-9825-2024, seeking grant of interim bail has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. 04.03.2024 ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL) mohan JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No