High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/36937/2024allowed

Abhay Pratap v. State Of Haryana

2024-09-05Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel6 pages

!"# $% #&'('$)*

+, ,

ABHAY PRATAP ,, #"'"'$)#- .(, STATE OF HARYANA

,,#(/$)0#)"

* 1 2 ,

3 2

Present:

Mr. B.S. Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana.

...

3 2

, -!5 ++

Application is allowed, as prayed for. Zimni orders are taken on record.

The instant petition has been filed on 29.07.2024 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for grant of regular bail. As per the judgment rendered by this Court titled 6

! !"# ! !"$%% &'"4 the instant petition is not maintainable under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973. However, keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case especially that the instant petition pertains to regular bail, the instant petition is directed to be considered as a petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Present petition has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.160 dated 21.12.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2), 384, 506, 201 and 406 of IPC at Women Police Station, Faridabad.

The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out by the petitioner in the present petition) is as follows:= "

! "##$ % & '( ' $) *+! ,#,,

. ( ! .

- $#"( (/0 1, +'

+0 2! +0 2 !.

3 . ( !0 !

- 4 .

! !+.'

4 .

( !

!.0 ' #5 #6 ,#,,( !

- 6$"7""7##),.

' +0 2!

+ #7 #6 ,#,,

8! #7 #6 ,#,,.0 + !

-+ )9$#

'. +0 '

+ 69##

'!( +0 --

.0 ( !

0"#9##

'- . .

- .

.0 - .

+ .

( ! !+. '

- :+ !

'!- !

+ $ -

-- ! + 8!( !

- !;

!+.

-!+ - .

! '!+.

. . . !+-

-!+.

. ,### 0 !+

--.---- .! ' "7

'. ,###.

+ +( ! !.

+ . -

- .

0 -

-- !

! -'

!( !0

! .

( ! !

( !'

.0!+

' (- ( !

1)1##<57),6

. !+ -. + ! '

! 0 !+ "< 6 ,#,,.

( !;

+ ,###-

;(&

8!+'

; (&

+ - -

0 !

;' '-

. . "#### - !-

;(&

! -

(& ,# #6 ,#,, ( !

-( !.

+ "#9##( !

- -+! ! .

' !.

-0+ !!

! . !-

+ !

+ - (- ,$ #6 ,#,,

+ !

( - -+! .

0 .

' 0 ' + 0 ( ! !

+ !

; ' !

+ ( !

0 !0 ' ' ( ! = 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 20.01.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question on account of a money dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the earlier two bail petitions preferred by the petitioner were withdrawn on 11.10.2023 as also on 18.04.2024 but the trial in question is not progressing. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the orders dated 21.05.2024, 06.08.2024, 07.08.2024 as also 09.08.2024 passed by the trial Court. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. 5.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

The petitioner was arrested on 20.01.2023 whereinafter investigation was carried out & challan was presented on 27.02.2023. Total 16 prosecution witnesses have been cited out of which 7 have been examined. It is not in dispute that the testimony of the victim already stand recorded as a prosecution witness. The rival contention of the learned counsel for the parties; as to whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question; shall be gone into during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. A perusal of orders dated 21.05.2024, 06.08.2024, 07.08.2024 as also 09.08.2024 passed by the trial Court indicate that the trial is not being procrastinated on account of any conduct of the petitioner (herein). In this regard, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of ' ( )*+ , -

, // + - !''

! !"

* 0$ +# -

! !"> relevant whereof reads as under:= ?"6-

! + ''

! + '

- +

+ ( ,"-

+ ''

! +

+ (

,"-

+ -

+ @

3 '+ - 4++

+ +

'+!

! .

. !

+ ''

! ' ( ," -

+ = Indubitably, the petition in hand is the third bail petition preferred by the petitioner. The first petition preferred by the petitioner was withdrawn on 11.10.2023 and the second petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.04.2024. A perusal of the orders dated 21.05.2024, 06.08.2024, 07.08.2024 as also 09.08.2024 passed by the trial Court do not indicate that any fault can be fastened upon the petitioner for the non=culmination of trial. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to consider the instant bail petition.

Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the remaining prosecution evidence. As per the custody certificate dated 04.09.2024 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has suffered incarceration for about 01 year 07 months and 15 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case. Suffice to say further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

In view of totality of factual matrix of the present case, the instant petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:= (i) The petitioner shall not mis=use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell=phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8.

In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

Ordered accordingly.

10.

Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

11.

Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.

+, ,

3 2 *

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes No Whether reportable Yes No