Mukesh Singh v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-40475-2024 -1217/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-40475-2024 Decided on : 03.12.2024 Mukesh Singh ...... Petitioner

Versus

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

Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rahul Mohan, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Lakshay Jindal, Advocate for the complainant.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 of BNS, for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.15 dated 02.02.2024 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Satnali, District Mahendergarh. 2.

On 03.09.2024, while noticing the following submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court had granted the concession of interim bail to the petitioner and asked him to join investigation:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was neither the beneficiary nor a conspirator to the crime in question."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 03.09.2024, petitioner has joined the investigation and cooperated with the investigating officer.

SONIA BURA 2024.12.05 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-40475-2024 -24.

Learned State counsel assisted by counsel for the complainant, on instructions from SI Sarika, has not disputed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. However, it has been asserted by the State counsel that recovery of Rs.15 lakhs, which was given in cash to the petitioner has not yet been made.

5.

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

6.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that Courts must assess the prayer for bail application independently, without being swayed by the arguments of the State or the complainant that recovery of certain articles or money is yet to be affected. It has been emphasised by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that the role of the Court is not to aid or assist in recovering the money or articles of the complainant. Rather, the Courts are expected to just prioritise as to whether the parameters laid down for the concession of bail are met, instead of facilitating the recovery of money etc.

7.

In view of the above, present petition is allowed and interim order dated 03.09.2024 is made absolute subject to the conditions as envisaged in Section 438(2) Cr.PC/482(2) of BNSS. 03.12.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No SONIA BURA 2024.12.05 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document