Mahesh v. State Of Haryana




IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 218/3 Date of decision: 26.07.2023 Mahesh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present :

Mr. Pankaj Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Dhruv Sihag, AAG Haryana ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY . J.

1.

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.16 dated 26.02.2022, registered under Sections 302, 201, 148, 149, 120-B and 34 IPC at Police Station Bahalgarh, District Sonepat, Haryana.

2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for almost 1 year and 4 months. His name surfaced based on disclosure statement of coaccused Monty @ Kanwa. He alleges false implication. No injury has been attributed to him. The allegation levelled against him is of having caught hold the deceased. The petitioner is not involved in any other case. Though charges were framed way back on 10.11.2022, however, only 3 out of 24 PWs have been examined.

3.

The custody certificate dated 25.07.2023 filed by learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 1 year 3 months and 24 days.




















4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner had actively participated in the commission of the offence. He is however unable to controvert the submissions regarding the stage of the case and petitioner being not involved in any other case. 5.

Heard.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year, 3 months and 24 days; not involved in any other case; though charges stand framed on 10.11.2022, however, only 3 out of 24 witnesses have been examined; the trial is likely to take considerable time and thus his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose, as such the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed. 7.

As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to him not being required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:- (i).

The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii).

The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii). The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv). The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

(v).

The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.




















(vi). The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty. (vii). The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.

(viii).The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

(ix). The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner. 8.

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.

9.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 26.07.2023 S.Sharma(syr) Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No