High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/45365/2022allowed

Ankit Alias Bachi v. State Of Haryana

2022-12-06Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-45365-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.12.2022 ANKIT ALIAS BACHI ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Anand Kumar Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurbir S. Dhillon, AAG Haryana.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) Through this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case bearing FIR No.429 dated 26.11.2021, registered at Police Station Sadar Hansi, District Hisar, under Sections 307, 120-B and 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been involved in the present case; that the petitioner was not named in the FIR; that the only allegation against the petitioner is that though the petitioner had fired towards the complainant, yet no injury has been attributed to him; that the alleged weapon has already been recovered from the petitioner and that the petitioner has been in custody since 22.12.2021. He further submits that complainant, namely, Rajeev, while appearing as prosecution witnesses before the Court below on 21.05.2022, has not supported the prosecution version and turned hostile, qua the petitioner only and that the co-accused has already been granted the concession of bail.

AMAN JAIN 2022.12.07 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-45365-2022 (O&M) -2Per contra, while opposing the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, learned State counsel does not dispute the custody period of the petitioner. He, however, submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioner, inasmuch as, he was having a country pistol, live and empty cartridges, which were recovered from him. He further submits that prosecution evidence is yet to conclude. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been in custody since 22.12.2021. The petitioner was not named in the FIR. No injury has been attributed to the petitioner. Recovery has already been effected from the petitioner. The complainant has not supported the prosecution version and turned hostile, qua the petitioner. Prosecution evidence is yet to conclude. In such circumstances, the trial of the case would take a long time to conclude. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

In view of the above and without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it should prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 06.12.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No AMAN JAIN 2022.12.07 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.