Siya Ram v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.213 Date of Decision: 01.10.2021 Siya Ram

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

(Heard through Video-Conferencing) CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present:

Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate for the petitioner.

* * * * MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.

(ORAL) The petitioner herein seeks the relief of regular bail in the criminal case pertaining to the FIR bearing No.219 dated 12.05.2021 registered at Police Station Hisar City, under Section 7(A)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC, with the allegations that he had supplied the 'Remdesivir' injection, used for treating COVID patients, to his co-accused who had sold the same to the decoy customer for a sum of Rs.55,000/- which was much higher than its market price.

Mr. Vishal Kashyap, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, has joined the proceedings in pursuance of the notice of this petition having been sent to the respondent-State in advance and he has

-2- ......

also forwarded the copy of Pairvi/status-report, along-with the disclosure statement as allegedly suffered by the petitioner, to this Court through the 'WhatsApp Group for Video-Conferencing' and the same are taken on the record.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel in the present petition and have also gone through the file thoroughly.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is in custody since 13.05.2021 and is also not involved in any other criminal case of the similar nature and the Challan already stands presented in the Court and moreover, his co-accused namely Karan Singh and Vinod Kumar have already been extended the relief of regular bail by this Court vide the orders dated 01.09.2021 and 17.09.2021 passed in CRM-M No.34879 of 2021 and CRM-M No.30135 of 2021 respectively and in these circumstances, the petitioner also deserves the relief as prayed for in the instant petition. Learned State counsel does not dispute the afore-referred factual position but he opposes the present petition on the ground of gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner.

-3- ......

and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

This petition stands allowed accordingly.

(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) 01.10.2021 JUDGE neetu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No