High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/31346/2022allowed

Gopi Chand @ Gopi v. State Of Haryana

2022-09-06Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-31346-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.09.2022 GOPI CHAND @ GOPI

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Hardeep Singh Kasan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, AAG Haryana.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) Through this 2nd petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case bearing FIR No.166 dated 04.04.2021, registered under Section 379B IPC (deleted) and Sections 392, 394, 411, 201 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station City Kaithal, District Kaithal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR; that initially the complainant identified Titu and Jai Parkash as accused in the present case; that it was on the basis of the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 05.10.2021, the petitioner has been indicted in the present case and that the complainant and Surender (complainant's mama) while appearing as PW1 and PW-2 before the learned trial Court, have not supported the prosecution version and turned hostile. He further submits that as per the statement of Dr. Ankita (PW-3) recorded on 10.06.2022, there was no injury on the head of the injured and he was not admitted to the hospital. AMAN JAIN 2022.09.07 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-31346-2022 (O&M) -2Still further, it is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 22.10.2021.

Per contra, while opposing the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, learned State counsel does not dispute the custody period of the petitioner. He, however, submits that one gold kada was handed over to the petitioner, who further sold the same. He further submits that most of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been in custody since 22.10.2021. Complainant and his mama i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 have turned hostile. As per the statement of Dr. Ankita, there was no injury on the head of the injured and he was also not admitted to the hospital. Remaining prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. In such circumstances, the trial of the case would take a long time to conclude.

Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. In view of the above and without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it should prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 06.09.

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No AMAN JAIN 2022.09.07 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment