Manish @ Mandu v. State Of Haryana

Sr. No.221

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25293 of 2020 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 03.09.2020 Manish @ Mandu

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Present :

Mr. Lalit Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, DAG Haryana.

(Presence marked through video conference) ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL) 1.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 161 dated 23.04.2020, registered under Sections 379-B read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station Meham, District Rohtak.

2.

Per FIR, on 23.04.2020 the complainant along with his friends Rahul, Sunil, Kuldeep and Parkash had gone to Mehmam town. At that time, two unknown persons snatched Rs.15,000/- from the complainant and a mobile phone from Rahul. FIR was registered. During investigation, petitioner was arrested on 26.04.2020. An amount of Rs.11,200/- was recovered from him. While from co-accused Shubham, recovery of snatched mobile phone and an amount of Rs.4,600/- was effected. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 26.04.2020, investigation is over and challan has been filed, SONU 2020.09.04 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

but there is no headway in the trial due to Covid-19 pandemic. The Courts are currently working with restrictions and taking up only urgent matters. He further submits that co-accused Shubham has already been granted the benefit of regular bail by the Court below and on the ground of parity alone the petitioner is entitled to the same relief. 3.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail plea. He, however, admits that co-accused Shubham has been enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court and presently there is no headway in the trial due to pandemic.

4.

The petitioner is in custody since 26.04.2020. His co-accused Shubham from whom snatched mobile phone and part of the alleged snatched amount of Rs.4600/- was effected has already been granted bail. On the ground of parity alone, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. That apart, it is not the case that the money recovered from the petitioner was on the spot. The investigation is also over and commencement of trial is still awaited. In the current pandemic scenario, the trial of the case is not likely either to start or get over soon.

5.

Taking wholesome view of the matter, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner is admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, as the case may be. 6.

Petition stands allowed accordingly.

(ARUN MONGA) September 03, 2020 JUDGE Jiten Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No SONU 2020.09.04 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document