Suraj v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision : September 02, 2024 Suraj ....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present :

Mr. Puneet Pali, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana KULDEEP TIWARI,J. (ORAL) 1.

Through the instant petition, as filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner prays for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.155 dated 28.05.2024, under Sections 380, 454, 511 IPC, and later on added offence under Section 136 of Electricity Act, 2003, registered at Police Station Baldev Nagar, District Ambala. 2.

The allegation(s), as levelled against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused entered into the office of S.E. Uttri Haryana Bijli Nigam, Ambala, and tried to steal the aluminum wires. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his asking for the relief (supra), submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR, and that too only on the basis of disclosure

statement of co-accused Anju, wife of Deepak. He further submits that the petitioner has been behind the bars since 15.07.2024. Finally, he submits that since petitioner's co-accused Nisha, Anju wife of Rahul, and Anju wife of Deepak, who are on a co-equal pedestal as the petitioner, have already been granted the relief of regular bail by this Court, as is evident from the orders dated 04.07.2024 (Annexure P-3), 30.7.2024 (Annexure P-4) and 30.7.2024 (Annexure P/5), respectively, therefore, the petitioner also deserves the alike relief.

4.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, on the ground that, he and his co-accused had dared to enter in the S.E. Office in broad daylight, and tried to steal the aluminum wires. He further submits that the case is at investigation stage.

5.

Be that as it may, taking into account: (i) the allegations levelled against the petitioner; (ii) the evidence against the petitioner; (iii) the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner; (iv) the fact that the case is at investigation stage; and (v) the fact that petitioner's co-accused have already been granted the relief of regular bail by this Court; this Court deems it fit and appropriate to extend the benefit of regular bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition is allowed.

6.

The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

7.

However, anything observed here-in-above shall have no effect on the merits of the case and is meant for deciding the present petition only.

8.

It is further made clear that, in future, if the petitioner is found involved in any similar kind of offence, the State is at liberty to file an appropriate application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner.

( KULDEEP TIWARI ) September 02, 2024 JUDGE 'tiwana'

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No Whether Reportable ?

Yes/No