Pardeep v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH (Through Video-conferencing) CRM-M No.20149 of 2020(O&M) Date of Decision:20.09.2021 PARDEEP ......Petitioner Vs STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH Present:Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anant Kataria, DAG, Haryana.

**** RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) Petitioner seeks grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.55 Dated 30.03.2020, registered under Sections 201, 394, 395, 427 IPC, at Police Station Sadar Narwana, District Jind.

FIR was registered at the instance of complainant Rakesh with the allegations that he was running a poultry farm. On 29.03.2020 he was going to his house from his poultry farm at about 9:00 PM in his car. At about 9:15 PM when he reached near the shuttering shop at village Dumarkha Khurd, 5-6 boys were standing there. They gave him signal to stop the car. The complainant stopped his car. One boy asked about his ID proof.

The complainant showed him the ID proof and then one boy took out the key of the car and pushed out the complainant forcibly from the car and started beating him. All the assailants were armed with Dandas and they gave danda blows to the complainant. The complainant got many injuries from them on his eyes, mouth and chest. In the meanwhile, one alto car reached there. There were two persons in the car. They tried to save the complainant, but the assailants did not stop. One of the boys snatched the purse of the complainant with ID proof and Rs.23,000/-. They took away car as well, after giving threats. The assailants also scuffled with the persons of alto car. The complainant alleged that Pardeep son of Parkash is known to him. He was hospitalized but due to Covid-19 he was discharged from the hospital.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in custody since 31.03.2020. On 24.11.2020, he was granted interim bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court. In view of the situation arising out due to COVID-19 pandemic, petitioner was to surrender on 23.03.2021 and he surrendered in time. Co-accused of the petitioner namely Ankit, Vinod , Aman and Mandeep have already been granted regular bail by the High Court. Out of 14 cited witnesses, none of the prosecution witness has been examined so far.

Learned State counsel, however, opposed the bail on the ground that petitioner is also involved in two other cases. Recovery of car besides cash amount has been recovered from the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that co-accused have already been granted bail, after recoveries have been effected from them. Petitioner can be treated on parity with co-accused particularly in the light of the interim bail granted by the High Court. Petitioner has not misused the concession of interim bail in any manner. The trial of the case may take some time in its culmination. In other two cases, petitioner is on bail.

Looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/concerned Duty Magistrate. Nothing expressed hereinabove would be construed to be an expression of any opinion on merits of the case. (RAJ MOHAN SINGH) 20.09.2021 JUDGE Amandeep Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No