Ajay Kumar And Another v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.222 CRM-M No.29564 of 2022 Date of Decision: 29th October, 2022 Ajay Kumar & Another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present:

Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate, & Mr. H.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Ms. Ambika Sood, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

* * * * MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.

(ORAL) Both the petitioners herein have sought the relief of regular bail in the criminal case arisen out of the FIR bearing No.140 dated 10.03.2022 registered at Police Station Ganaur, District Sonipat, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, Section 7/10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Sections 7 & 8 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, with the allegations that they had been indulging in the preparation of Diesel Exhaust Fluid in their rented premises by mixing urea fertilizer and some chemical in the water for selling it after labelling the same as the genuine products of the Tata and Eicher Companies.

2.

Reply on behalf of the respondent-State (by way of the affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ganaur, Sonipat), along-with Annexures R-1 & R-2, has already been filed.

SEEMA SHARMA 2022.10.29 19:18 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M No.29564 of 2022 ...2...

3.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel in the present petition and have also perused the file carefully.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the petitioners are behind the bars since the date of their arrest, i.e 10.03.2022 and the Challan has already been presented before the competent Court and the charges have also been framed in this case and moreover, the petitioners are not involved in any other criminal case of the similar nature and in these circumstances, they (petitioners) deserve the relief as prayed for in this petition.

5.

Learned State counsel does not dispute the afore-referred factual position.

6.

Keeping in view the above-discussed facts and circumstances as well as the fact that the trial of the case is likely to take sufficient time to conclude and without commenting or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, petitioner No.1- Ajay Kumar and petitioner No.2-Ravinder are ordered to be released on regular bail subject to their furnishing the requisite personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 7.

The instant petition stands allowed accordingly. (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE 29.10.2022 seema Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No SEEMA SHARMA 2022.10.29 19:18 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment