Parveen Kumar v. State Of Haryana

-1234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 27.11.2024 Parveen Kumar ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rahul Mohan, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral) 1.

This is the second petition filed by the petitioner seeking concession of regular bail in case FIR No.265 dated 13.07.2023 under Sections 419, 420 IPC (Sections 500, 501, 509, 201, 468, 469 and 120-B IPC and Sections 66 and 66(A) of Information and Technology Act added later on) registered at Police Station City Thanesar District Kurukshetra.

2.

At the outset, a pointed query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether there is any material change in circumstances subsequent to the dismissal of the previous petition on merits, he has not been able to bring to the notice of this Court any material change in circumstances; rather it has been conceded by the learned counsel that the trial Court has been proceeding at a

-2reasonably good pace and only seven prosecution witnesses, that too formal in nature, remain to be examined out of the 31 cited. 3.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing the attention of this Court to the serious and specific allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR in question. Learned State counsel has, on further instructions, submitted that the next date of hearing fixed before the Trial Court is 04.12.2024 when all the prosecution witnesses would be examined. It has also been asserted by the State counsel that in the circumstances, the trial in all likelihood would be concluding in the next couple of months.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5.

Prima facie, there are serious and specific allegations levelled against the petitioner; furthermore, no substantial change in circumstances subsequent to the dismissal of previous petition on merits has been brought to the notice of this Court. The trial in all likelihood would be concluding in the near future as evidence of only formal witnesses remains to be recorded.

6.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court, therefore, does not deem it fit to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that anything observed

-3hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

7.

The Trial Court would, however, still endeavour to conclude the trial on or before 31.01.2025.

27.11.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No