Rajbir Singh v. State Of Haryana

Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner in order to secure release of one Raju Mandal on bail, forged and fabricated surety bonds before the trial Court wherein one co-accused Hansraj impersonated himself as Tara Chand and another co-accused Bhajan identified him as Tara Chand. Hence, the present FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR, nor has any

On the other hand, l opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. She argued that the petitioner is specifically named in the disclosure statement of co-accused and he has actively participated in the crime.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 11 months; investigation is complete; challan stands

presented; charges framed; no prosecution witness has been examined; the complicity of the petitioner is a matter of trial; the trial is proceeding at snail's pace, and will take a long time to conclude. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. His continued detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.