High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/41253/2019allowed

Akash v. State Of Haryana

2020-02-06Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

CRM-M-41253-2019 (O&M).

Decided on: February 06, 2020.

Akash .. Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana .. Respondent * * *

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI * * * PRESENT Mr.Aditya Sanghi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (ORAL ) The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Cr.P.C.'), seeking regular bail in FIR No.144 dated 19.06.2019 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station, Bawal, District Rewari. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present FIR though the petitioner has been nominated but the role attributed to him is that he used to collect the forms whereas the main

accused Naresh Kumar @ Subhash, had allegedly taken money from the victims. He has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 26.6.2019 and all the material witnesses have already been examined and therefore, prays for the grant of regular bail. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Veer Singh, has not disputed the custody period and submits that in the present case almost all the material witnesses have been examined including the victim and that some of the witnesses have turned hostile. It has also been pointed out, on instructions, by the learned State counsel that there is no other case pending against the petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record of the case. It is a case where though the petitioner has been nominated, as per FIR the exchange of money is not attributable to the petitioner and the role attributed to the petitioner is that he was present for the purpose of collection of forms.

Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 26.6.2019 and most of the material witnesses have already been examined as per joint statement by learned counsel for both the sides, I deem it appropriate to admit the petitioner on regular bail. Consequently, the petition is allowed. It is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on merits of the case and is meant only

for the purpose of decision of present petition. February 06, 2020.

(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI) raj arora JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No Whether reportable Yes / No