Krishan Alias Kala v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-14196-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision:-27.7.2022 Krishan @ Kala ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Abhishek Chha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, DAG, Haryana, assisted by SI Surinder Singh.

***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.52, dated 24.2.2021, Police Station Murthal, District Sonipat, Haryana, under Sections 379 of Indian Penal Code, wherein offences under Sections 395, 412 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act were added later on.

2.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Tinku, wherein it is alleged that on the night intervening 23/24.2.2021 when he was proceeding towards his home in car bearing registration No.DL-7226, he parked his car on the way to have tea. However, some unknown persons stole his car by breaking the window. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is nowhere named in the FIR and came to be nominated as an accused pursuant to disclosure statements made by two co-accused namely Sunil and Vinay, who had been arrested in connection with some other case. It has further been PANKAJ KAKKAR 2022.07.27 17:48 I attest to the authenticity and integrity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-14196-2022 (O&M) submitted that it is from the said co-accused that the car in question was recovered and that the only recovery effected from the petitioner is stated to be an amount of Rs.700/-, which cannot be connected with the alleged theft of car.

4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submitted that since the petitioner has been specifically named by two of his co-accused, his complicity is clearly evident and, as such, he does not deserve the concession of bail. Learned State counsel has, however, informed that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 8 months and that none out of the cited 22 PWs has been examined till date. Learned State counsel also informed that the petitioner happens to be involved in 2 other cases. 5.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 6.

The petitioner is stated to have been nominated on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused, the admissibility and veracity of which would be debatable. In any case, the petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of 8 months. Conclusion of trial is likely to consume time inasmuch as none out of the cited 22 PWs has been examined so far. In these circumstances, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

27.7.2022 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No PANKAJ KAKKAR 2022.07.27 17:48 I attest to the authenticity and integrity of this document