Karambir Alias Chhota v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:-1.10.2024 Karambir @ Chhota ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Vishal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.

***** FIR No.

Dated Police Station Section/s 30.9.2023 Chandnibagh, District Panipat 365, 379-B, 34 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of the aforementioned FIR.

2.

The FIR was lodged by the complainant - Suresh Kumar, wherein it is alleged that on 29.9.2023, when he was proceeding in his car to attend a birthday party of his friend in Sector - 12, Panipat, then at about 10:30 PM, two boys signaled his car to stop. When he stopped the car, the said 2 boys told him that they are from CIA staff and that the complainant was required to accompany them. One of them while brandishing a pistol told the

( 2 ) complainant to sit on the rear seat and one of the boy started driving the vehicle. It is alleged that later they snatched an amount of Rs.15,000/- which the complainant was carrying and also snatched his 3 ATM cards, his mobile phone and a gold ring. When the complainant was asked about the PIN number of his ATM card, he disclosed incorrect number. Later when one of them went to the ATM to operate his ATM card and could not draw the amount, then the said persons inflicted a blow with some iron article on his head and again inquired about the bank ATM number. It is further alleged that thereafter the complainant passed out and was thrown out of the car. When he managed to go back to his home, he realized that an amount of Rs.25,000/- had been withdrawn from his bank account. It is further the case of prosecution that the petitioner is the person who had operated the ATM card and had withdrawn the amount as has been specifically admitted by the petitioner in his disclosure statement when he was arrested in connection with some other case.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly there were two persons, who were later on identified by the complainant as Mohit and Priyankal @ Pintu and that the petitioner is being nominated as an accused on the basis of his own disclosure statement when he was arrested in another case, which would hardly carry any evidentiary value. It has been submitted that the petitioner, in any case, has been behind the bars since last about 10 months and the trial has not even commenced till date. 4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submitted that the police during the course of investigation has collected CCTV footage from the ATM kiosk,

( 3 ) which shows the presence of the petitioner and as such, his complicity is clearly evident. It has however been informed that none out of the cited 26 PWs has been examined till date. It has also been informed that the petitioner happens to be involved in two other cases.

5.

This Court has considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 6.

Without commenting anything as regards merits of the case, but having regard to the custody of the petitioner i.e. about 10 months and that the trial has not even commenced till date, it goes without saying that the conclusion of the trial is likely to consume time inasmuch as 26 PWs have been cited. Under these circumstance, it will not be appropriate to detain the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period.

7.

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. 1.10.2024 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) Geeta/P Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No