Jamsheed v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-44823-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision:-22.11.2022 Jamsheed ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Baljeet Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, DAG, Haryana.

assisted by ASI Taleem Hussain.

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

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.249, dated 18.5.2022, Police Station Adarsh Nagar, District Faridabad, under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 193 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

2.

The allegations, in nutshell, are that the petitioner, who also happens to be involved in FIR No.559, dated 14.12.2021, Police Station Adarsh Nagar, District Faridabad, under Sections 29, 22-C, 61, 85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, had produced a forged and fabricated medical certificate before the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Faridabad, which was prepared in connivance with co-accused Dr. Vinod for the purpose of getting interim bail.

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2022.11.22 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-44823-2022 (O&M) 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the co-accused Dr. Vinod, who can be said to have prepared an incorrect medical record and that the petitioner cannot be said to have played any role in the same and it was without his knowledge that the facts as written in the medical certificate were written incorrectly.

4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since it is the petitioner, who was the benefit from the forged and fabricated medical certificate inasmuch he had presented the said forged and fabricated medical certificate before the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad for the purpose of interim bail, his complicity is clearly evident. Learned State counsel has, however, informed that the petitioner as on date has been behind bars since the last about 51⁄2 months. 5.

This Court has considered the rival submissions. 6.

Without commenting anything as regards merits of the case but while noticing that the petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of 51⁄2 months, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose 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. 22.11.2022 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No PANKAJ KAKKAR 2022.11.22 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document