Arjun Singh Chauhan Alias Pawan Alias Bunty v. State Of Haryana And Another
!"#"
$%&& '()$"$*++)+$, -$,)$ .
"
"
$ '
'.$$ $
+ '
#/ $ $ 0% 120 & 0 2
!" #$
% #&' ((((( 0 23&4 25 $ ' ) '
$* '% '+ )
$,-, ') ' ) ./0#&-, 1*$$&1&$ )'
$&1
2$*-$*,31&&1$/%
&4 $,4,56
3 '% '+ )
$,-, &1$4 ' 7 '
%
" '
09 & + ./0 :
)"
''9
P a g e | 2
!"# $%
&'# $$ $( )$ $ $"# '$!" $'# $& # &*+" & , -./-"+-0102 3 & /0 /4 $
$ &'
&
"
* '# & 5
$ #& $ $ $$ 60/26/6.
)$ #$
& && $'$7 $
& & $ $ $ $ $ 8 ,6.9 &$
&& $8 $ !%$ * $ /1
3
$ $ $ & %$ * ! * ! %
&'# $&5 &
& )$ #
$ '# 7 85 :# ; # "
# < ! $&& #& & $ %$ *
!'# = "-- %$ *
! '# $
)$ $
$ 5
$$)$ &$ " $ "# &$ # #
$
$ =$ #$
# & #
$
$ />..6/6. 8 "# * ? * $!- !"# ( ,29/.416164@ 3 ; ' )
'' " $<$$&1&$; '
P a g e | 3
) ''" '
./0 :
; ' ' '
*19
9 '"=) >
'' ; ' '' ./0
' 8 '" )
; ' '' '' ./0; ' ) ' '" ) ' '" ? '9 ) > ') ')" % &*1*&1&4 %0
33=3 &1&4 > = !
9
9
'" @"?2" )> ) " "9
:
+') ' " * ; ''' ' #& ' ' )" ''
'' ; '
) ' ? ' 9 )''
9 9 ; ' 9 9
'" @" ? 2 " ) >
9
; ' '" ./0 )
P a g e | 4 > ') ' ; ' @ ' "
131,&1&4 % 9
@ ; ' ' ' '" )" 9"
" ! 8 "
'
'
09 )'
9 @ ' 9 A3 $$64/26/60 $
+ ,7'A+* B && $ $
$ $$$"& $$ "# C '$ D & A7 $$E $&,&$$ $ - $F$/>/96/60
7
&* ,$ $"&$ "F-.$-6@ 4 / ' '
')' = +'' 9 $<$$&1&$
" '
'' 9 $3$$&1&&9 *1
9
)
/ '"=
9
) > It is not in dispute that the conclusion of trial will take long time. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to the dicta passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494, relevant whereof reads thus:
P a g e | 5 G.2 * $ &$$ $$ $ $ $ &$ = 5 $$ $$ $ 3
$
#& $
$ & H
$ $& .9 && $& $ $ $ & $ $ $$" 6.* && $ &$
$" 6. * @ The rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties; as to the whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR, shall be gone into during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage lest it may prejudice the rights of either of the parties. # )') ) 9 '
@'
) B
9
"
' " '' 3", $&". "
9 ) '
31< /% However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner
P a g e | 6 in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.388222022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. "
" : < / 9 ) ' ''9+'' )' ') ' ) ' ")
' %C 8 " !9
") )" %C 8 "
'' ) )" ''9
(i +'' '' '
) "
+ '' '' 9
" ' " '
+ '' '' ) ' " ) '
+ '' ''
" 9 ' ) '
+'' ''
"9
'%
+ '' '' '' )
/
D !D '
'' ''
)
P a g e | 7
' % /'':
+ '' '' " " '"
'
+'' '')
9@ " "
)
' % )
' " ) ' ) '/ )
' " ) ' ) ' ./0 )
9 9
''
) '9 ') '')
- / ) "
9 " ) )" %C 8 " ) 9 "
' '' ) '
) " ''
) ' '' , D '" $1 # )'') >
$$
) '' '
"''' (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE September 04, 2025 ,
P a g e | 8 Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No