Raghbir Singh v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

Criminal Misc. No.M-30386 of 2015 .....

Date of decision:17.9.2015 Raghbir Singh

...Petitioner

v.

State of Haryana

...Respondent

....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. Harsh Kinra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Himmat Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.41 dated 1.7.2015 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, Sections 7 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau (H), Rohtak, District Rohtak.

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Himmat Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has put in appearance and accepted notice on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2015.09.19 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-30386 of 2015 [2] learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondentState and have gone through the record. The FIR in the present case has been registered on the basis of a written complaint dated 1.7.2015 made by Wazir Singh. As per the allegations there are five depots for distribution of Government ration. These are with Raghbir Singh, Kuldip, Premvir and Rani etc. Kerosene oil is not being properly distributed by the depot holders. The depot holders in connivance with Mahesh Kumar Madan of Rohtak, who is supplier of the kerosene oil and Rajbir Nain, Inspector, Food and Civil Supplies, Meham, sell the kerosene oil in black instead of distributing the same. The present petitioner is in judicial custody since 3.7.2015.

He is not required for investigation or interrogation purposes as he is in judicial custody. The trial of the case will take long time. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody till the final disposal of the case. Therefore, 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, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

September 17, 2015.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2015.09.19 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh