Arbaj v. State Of Haryana

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 15.10.2024 Arbaj ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present :

Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, AAG, Haryana.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral) CRM-40218-2024 Application is allowed as prayed for and documents (Annexures P-3 to P-7) are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Main case 1.

This is the petition filed by the petitioner seeking concession of regular bail in case FIR No.42 dated 26.09.2023 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Nuh District Nuh.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the registration of FIR in question, investigation was carried out and statements of Abbas Ali, PWs - Hasir Mohammad, Safikul Ali and Mahasin Shiekh under Section 161 of Cr.PC were recorded implicating the petitioner in the crime in question. However, when some of these prosecution witnesses stepped into the witness box, they did not allege

-2anything against the petitioner. It has been thus, submitted by the learned counsel that it was evidently a case of false implication and there was no cogent evidence to link the petitioner with the crime in question.

3.

Learned State counsel has, however, opposed the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite and submitted that after the registration of FIR in question, the statement of Abbas Ali under Section 161 Cr.PC was recorded wherein he categorically stated that he had opened a bank account in HDFC Bank on the asking of accused Mohammad Mammun and thereafter the bank kit, which had been supplied to him, was taken away by the present petitioner and coaccused Sahid on an assurance that the same would be returned after activating the bank account and printing his name on the ATM Card. Learned State counsel has further submitted that only 06 prosecution witnesses out of 16 cited remain to be examined. 4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5.

The instant case rests on documentary evidence, which is already part of the challan. Hence, there can be no possibility of the petitioner tampering with the evidence. The petitioner has been in custody since 26.09.2023 and the possibility of the trial concluding in the near future seems unlikely as 6 prosecution witnesses still remain to be examined.

6.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court deems it fit to extend the concession of regular bail to the

-3petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

7.

However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

8.

Needless to add, in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail granted to him, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the same.

15.10.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No