Vijay v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-9744 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 29, 2017 Vijay

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Ms.Deepshikha Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.B.S.Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.521 dated 23.05.2013 under Sections 392, 302, 201, 414, 412 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Hisar, District Hisar.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that the allegation, as per learned State Counsel, against the present petitioner is that he had purchased scrap loaded in the stolen truck, in question. Learned State counsel admitted at the time Vineet Gulati 2017.09.29 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-9744 of 2017 -2of arguments that present petitioner has no concern with the murder of driver of the truck nor he has any concern with the theft/robbery of the truck.

The only allegation against the petitioner is that he had purchased the scrap loaded in the truck in question and disposed of the same. As per prosecution version, after four years, 94 kgs. of scrap has been recovered from the shop of the present petitioner. Neither the petitioner has taken any active participation in the robbery nor he has played any role in the murder of the driver of the truck and only allegation against him is that he had purchased some scrap loaded in the truck in question being a scrap dealer.

The petitioner has been in custody since 18.02.2017. The trial of the case will take long time. The petitioner is not required for any investigation or interrogation purposes as he is in judicial custody. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody till disposal of the case.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. September 29, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2017.09.29 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh