Naveen @ Bachhi v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 03.9.2020 Naveen @ Bachhi ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL) Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

This is the 4th petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 94 dated 26.03.2015 under Sections 148/149/307/120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Sadar Narnaul, District Mahendergarh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the petitioner was granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 06.04.2017 (Annexure P-3). As the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court as he was not well, he was declared a proclaimed offender.

(2) Subsequently, he was re-arrested on 5.9.2018. Learned counsel has further submitted that it is a version and crossversion case. The said fact was duly taken into consideration by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, while granting the concession of regular bail to the petitioner vide order dated 06.04.2017.

It is further submitted that because of Covid-19 Pandemic, there is no head way in the trial and thus, pending the trial, a prayer for enlarging the petitioner on regular bail is made.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Sarita, has submitted that the evidence in the case have since been concluded. It is further submitted that that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of regular bail, as the earlier concession of regular bail has been misused by him. It is further submitted that there are some other cases pending against the petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel.

As noticed above, the petitioner was granted regular bail vide order dated 06.04.2017 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. The petitioner misused the said concession, which led to him being declared as proclaimed offender by the trial Court. The conduct of the petitioner does not warrant any further indulgence. Moreover,

(3) as pointed by the learned State counsel, the evidence having already been concluded, the trial is at the fag end. No ground for grant of regular bail to the petitioner is made out.

The petition is dismissed.

(HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE September 03, 2020 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No