Bijender Singh v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH (i) CRM No.M-32128 of 2019 (O&M) Bijender Singh
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(ii) CRM No.M-34447 of 2019 (O&M) Balbir Singh
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana
...Respondent
Date of Decision: September 10, 2019
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present:
Mr.Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM No.M-32128 of 2019). Mr.Adish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM No.M-34447 of 2019). **** INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Both the above-mentioned cases are taken up together as these have arisen from same FIR.
Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.771 dated 29.10.2016 under
CRM No.M-32128 of 2019 and connected petition -2Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Central, Faridabad.
Notice of motion.
Mr.Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested both the petitions.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. The perusal of the record shows that challan was presented against one Smt.Kamlesh, who was held guilty and convicted by learned trial Court. While parting with the judgment, learned trial Court held that as accused Smt.Kamlesh as DW-2 deposed that other accused including present petitioners have given `5 lakhs to the Incharge, Economic Branch, for not arresting them, therefore, copy of the judgment be sent to the Commissioner, Faridabad, to look into the matter. Today, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the petitioners informed this Court that no challan has been presented against the Incharge, Economic Branch.
The petitioners have been in judicial custody, therefore, they are not required for any investigation or interrogation purposes. The trial of the case will take long time. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners in custody till the disposal of the case. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both the petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail subject to their furnishing
CRM No.M-32128 of 2019 and connected petition -3personal/surety bonds in the sum of `40,000/- with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. September 10, 2019 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No