Sumit v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M No.36770 of 2020 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.36770 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision.11.11.2020 (Heard through VC) Sumit

...Petitioner

Vs State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:

Mr. S.K. Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajiv Goel, DAG, Haryana.

-.- JAISHREE THAKUR J. (ORAL) This is a petition that has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.121 dated 20.04.2019 registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 511, 120-B and 201 IPC at Police Station Manesar, who is in custody since 16.07.2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner herein would contend that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant FIR. It is argued that the petitioner had only attested the power of attorney as witness on the asking of Jitender Kumar and he had only identified Jatinder Kumar and not the executant of the power of attorney. The allegation by the complainant is that a forged power of attorney has been executed by some one by impersonating him. The petitioner is neither executant of the power of attorney nor beneficiary of the same and therefore, no wrongful gain is earned by the petitioner. Investigation has been completed and the challan has already been presented, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for PANKAJ KUMAR 2020.11.11 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.36770 of 2020 (O&M) -2concession of bail as no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State opposes grant of regular bail to the petitioner by contending that no ground is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book.

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 16.07.2020 and the challan has already been presented coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude owing to novel corona virus pandemic, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on execution of adequate personal/surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, any observation made herein shall not be construed to be an expression on merits of the case.

(JAISHREE THAKUR) JUDGE November 11, 2020 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2020.11.11 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document