Devender v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(1) CRM No.M-30075 of 2015 Devender
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(2) CRM No.M-31695 of 2015 Dinesh Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(3) CRM No.M-33467 of 2015 Sharda Rani
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
Date of Decision: October 13, 2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present:
Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner-Devender Mr.Abhishek Arora, Advocate for the petitioners-Dinesh Kumar and Sharda Rani. Mr.Himmat Singh, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.
**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.
All the above-mentioned cases are taken up together being arisen from same FIR.
Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 439
CRM No.M-30075 of 2015 and connected cases -2Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.771 dated 29.11.2014 under Sections 379, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC registered at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar District Yamuna Nagar. Notice of motion was issued in all the petitions and learned State counsel appeared and contested the petitions. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of Satya Devi. As per the prosecution version, the amount of cheque in the sum of `2,500/- was erased by accused Dinesh Kumar and the cheque was fabricated of the amount of `1,25,000/-, which was deposited in the account of Sharda Rani.
As per prosecution version, petitioners Devender and Dinesh Kumar were seen in the CCTV footage of the bank. At the time of arguments, it is argued by learned State counsel that there are some other cases of similar nature against the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in all other cases, the petitioners are on bail and false cases have been planted against them on the basis disclosure statements. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel, I find that offences are triable by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. The petitioners are not required for any investigation or interrogation purposes as they are in judicial custody. Petitioner Devender is in custody since 02.06.2015, petitioner Dinesh Kumar is in custody since 20.04.
CRM No.M-30075 of 2015 and connected cases -3custody since 13.04.2015. The trial of the case will take long time. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners in custody till the disposal of the case.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, all the petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
October 13, 2015 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE