Samipal v. State Of Haryana And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 2024:PHHC:011377 CRM-M-28610-2020 Date of decision: January 29th, 2024 Samipal .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. S.S. Dinarpur and Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Rahul Mohan, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate for respondent No.2.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar vide order dated 03.09.2020 in case FIR No.109 dated 23.07.2020 registered under Sections 420/406/120-B of the IPC at Police Station Buria, District Yamuna Nagar.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that soon after the respondent-accused was extended the concession of bail by the trial Court vide order dated 03.09.2020 (Annexure P-3), he had been indulging in uncalled for behaviour and had been using abusive language against the complainant; he had also been threatening the petitioner-complainant of dire consequences as the entire police machinery was in his pocket. Learned counsel submits that in the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the concession of bail which had been granted to the respondent-accused deserves to be cancelled. PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.01.30 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document.

Chandigarh

CRM-M-28610-2020 -23.

On a pointed query put to the learned counsel as to whether there had been any breach of the conditions imposed upon the respondent-accused by the trial Court concerned, he has replied in the negative. It has also not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no complaint or any report was made to the police with respect to the alleged threats extended to the complainant or the alleged abusive utterances made by the respondent-accused. 4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has also apprised the Court, on instructions from S.I. Bhupinder that the respondent had neither been involved in any other case of similar nature nor had any complaint been received against him after he had been enlarged on bail by the trial Court vide order dated 03.09.2020. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.

6.

In the circumstances, no ground is made out to accept the prayer of the petitioner.

7.

The instant petition stands dismissed.

January 29th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.01.30 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document.

Chandigarh