Ikbal Alais Vinay v. State Of Haryana

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-41418-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision:-15.9.2022 Ikbal @ Vinay ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Mohan Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, DAG, Haryana, assisted by ASI Vijay.

***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) 1.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.360, dated 7.9.2021, Police Station City Jhajjar, District Jhajjar, Haryana, under Sections 379-B, 395, 397, 412, 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act. 2.

The allegations, in nutshell, are that on 7.9.2021, 6 unknown persons snatched the complainant's car and that one of the said 6 persons was also carrying a pistol.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioiner is nowhere named in the FIR and came to be nominated subsequently on the basis of a PANKAJ KAKKAR 2022.09.15 19:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-41418-2022 (O&M) disclsoure statement made by co-accused Suraj and Yash @ Atul, who had been apprehended by the police on the night intervening 7.9.2021/8.9.2021. 4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner came to be identified on the basis of disclosure statement of coaccused, on the day of occurrence itself, the authenticity of the same cannot be disputed. It has also been informed that the petitioner happens to be involved in two other identical cases. Learned State counsel has, however, informed that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 1 year. It has also been informed that none out of the cited 19 PWs has been examined so far.

5.

This Court has considered the rival submissions. 6.

Without commenting anything as regards merits of the case and while noticing that the petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of 1 year and that none out of the cited 19 PWs has been examined so far, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful as conclusion of trial is likely to consume time. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

15.9.2022 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No PANKAJ KAKKAR 2022.09.15 19:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document