High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/42184/2021allowed

Vijay Sarup v. State Of Haryana

2021-10-27Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan2 pages

CRM-M-42184-2021 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** CRM-M-42184-2021 Date of decision 27.10.2021 Vijay Sarup Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:

Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajwant Singh Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Geeta Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (Oral):

[1] Due to COVID-19 situation, the Court is convened through video conference.

[2] This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is filed seeking regular bail in FIR No. 18, dated 7th January, 2021 under Sections 193, 201, 205, 297, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC (Sections 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 added later on), registered at Police Station City, Hansi, District Hisar.

[3] The case set up is that there is a group operating for claiming insurance claims of death of cancer patients showing it to be a road accident death. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is the doctor who conducted the postmortem of Satyanarayan. PANKAJ BAWEJA 2021.10.27 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

CRM-M-42184-2021 -2- [4] Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28th July, 2021. He relies upon the fact that in the FIRs having similar allegation, the accused like petitioner were granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

[5] Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail and submits that the petitioner is involved in other FIRs. She further submits that the challan stands presented. . [6] The petitioner is in custody for more than three months. No recovery is to be made. The petitioner is a doctor in a Government hospital, not likely to abscond. The investigation is complete. The conclusion of trial is likely to take time. The petitioner is granted bail on furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

[7] The petition is allowed.

[8] It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE 27th October, 2021

1. Whether speaking/ reasoned :

Yes /No

2. Whether reportable :

Yes /No PANKAJ BAWEJA 2021.10.27 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh