← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/39604/2014allowed

Chetan v. State Of Haryana

2015-02-20Mr. Justice Krishna Murari2 pages

CRM-M-39604-2014 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39604-2014 (O&M).

Decided on: February 20, 2015.

Chetan ..... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana ..... Respondent(s) * * *

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI PRESENT Mr.J.S.Bedi, Sr., Advocate, Mr.Sunil Sihag, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.M.S.Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL) Petitioner seeks concession of regular bail in a case registered at the instance of Inspector Gajender Kumar alleging that pursuant to secret information rented premises were raided where three persons along with petitioner were found indulging in manufacturing of illegal arms.

So far as the petitioner is concerned, he was found working on a drill machine preparing handle (butt) of .315 bore firearm. Five weapons in working condition were recovered from the said premises.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been in custody w.e.f.10.6.2013. The petitioner is not owner or tenant of the premises from where the recoveries have been effected. It has been submitted that the petitioner is running his RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2015.02.21 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-39604-2014 (O&M) business under the name and Style of M/s Laxmi Tools and Engineering.

State counsel on the basis of record has contended that MTR machine which is used for drilling and making barrels was recovered from the premises belonging to the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and gone through the record. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is not the owner of the property from where the recoveries have been effected. So far as recovery of MTR machine is concerned, this happens to be a machine which is used for drilling purposes and is an important part of any tool manufacturing company.

The material witnesses have already been examined. The petitioner has been in custody for the last more than 11⁄2 years. Chance of tampering with the evidence is remote. The petitioner being not the owner of the premises from where the recoveries have been effected, he can be granted the concession of regular bail.

The petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(M.M.S. BEDI) February 20, 2015.

JUDGE rka