High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/33961/2022allowed

Rohtash And ORS v. State Of Haryana

2022-12-06Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH 238-A CRM-M-33961-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.12.2022 ROHTASH AND OTHERS ... Petitioners

Versus

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

Present:

Mr. Govind Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, AAG Haryana.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) Through this petition, the petitioners seek regular bail in case bearing FIR No.162 dated 19.03.2022, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal, under Sections 148, 149, 186, 332, 341, 353 and 379-B IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been involved in the present case and that the petitioners have been in custody since 19.03.2022. He further submits that there is no specific allegations against the petitioners; that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioners; that, as per the prosecution versions, 20 persons including the petitioners, have beaten the police officials and inflicted injuries to them, though the police officials were armed with the weapons and that the petitioners have neither snatched the key of the vehicle nor damaged the same. AMAN JAIN 2022.12.06 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

238-A CRM-M-33961-2022 (O&M) -2Per contra, while opposing the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioners, learned State counsel does not dispute the custody period of the petitioners. He, however, submits that the petitioners have actively participated in the occurrence, inasmuch as, they were the member of unlawful assembly, who have inflicted injuries to the police officials and that Section 307 IPC was added later on. Still further, it is submitted that post framing of the charges, prosecution evidence is yet to commence.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have been in custody since 19.03.2022.There is no specific allegation against the petitioners. No role has been attributed to the petitioners. There is no other case against the petitioners, except the ones related to the present occurrence. Prosecution evidence is yet to commence. 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 petitioners 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 petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 06.12.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No AMAN JAIN 2022.12.06 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.