High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/49705/2024allowed

Aakash @ Akash v. State Of Haryana

2025-02-14Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 14.02.2025 Aakash @ Akash ....Petitioner V/s ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:

Mr. Shubham Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.

#$#" % % %&'()!

$*$)#$# %

"#" "+ ,- "./0#10 1 $/ +# +$/ '2 2 - # &'( 4 0 1 5,

P a g e | 2 " !

%!!

& ! '

! (

(

)* % + " ,%

$ &

! - )* * !! !('*

*!! $

! *!! # !

(

* !!( !

* ! " !! # & %'

! ' - .

!! '

1 /' (

!!( ( !!

23. 4 4554 & %'

+ !! ") "

( 6 # (

!! 7%! '

!! * %(

" #

#" (

*( !

(

# !!

& $ ! *

(

( !!

# !!

+ #" '

! 3 "

! 1 8992 "

1 0

! &

4 !

- 7

89:8 . $

& 7*

!! &'5 # *

! 929//9 )* !! (

*!!

%.;:

P a g e | 3 (" # !

(

*"6 # *

**!! ) # !%( '

)* !

* !

(

( # "!! *

% % !

( !!

& + "& &

! - % )* * !! !(

'* !*

*!! $

! *!! # !

(

' * !!( !

* !

& % '

! ' - .

*# !

(

( (

/' (

!!( ! 5

( /

2. & %'

!* 6 # "

(

" (

7 !!%! !

!! ! * %

# %

" (

! * (!

;;#"

%( (& !

( !

* !( #" ! !" (

)* "

89926 1 0

! &;5 4 !

- 1 7

898 . $

&;5 & 7*

* !! # &'5# * &"

" 5015929//9

P a g e | 4 )*

(

*!! #

% ) ( " # "

(

* " " #

% <"5 # !%(

* !!

( # "!! *

( ( ! !

% ! "

= 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 10.01.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the challan in the case in hand was presented on 09.04.2024 and thereafter, charges were framed on 09.10.2024, but no prosecution witness has been examined till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.07.2024, thereinafter, in pursuance to an order passed by the trial Court under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., 1973, the petitioner has been able to obtain the record, which indicates that the petitioner/victim were going to the hotel on consensual basis for about 19 times. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further iterated that the case in hand pertains to one and consensual relationship which has become strained and it is on this account the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. 4.

Counsel for the State has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. 5.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

P a g e | 5 6.

The petitioner was arrested on 10.01.2024 & thereafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 09.04.2024 wherein total 21 witnesses have been cited, out of which only one has been examined till date. The rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties give rise to the debatable issues which shall be gone into during the course of the trial. % % % 6 % 7 % 7 % Inevitably, the petition in hand preferred on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail is the second one. The first petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner came to be withdrawn on 23.07.2024, which reads thus:

"1.Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present petitioner at this stage. 2.Dismissed as withdrawn at this stage.

3. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off."

Keeping in view the extended custody of the petitioner since 23.07.2024; no prosecution evidence has been led since then; as also the reliance placed by the petitioner upon the hotel records obtained on his behalf by way of an application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., 1973 before the trial Court, which impetus to the positive consideration of the present petition. As per the custody certificate dated 21.01.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has suffered incarceration for one year, 10 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case.

P a g e | 6 8.

Accordingly, keeping in view the entirety and totality of facts and circumstances of the case; this Court proceeds to consider favourably the plea for grant of bail to the appellant, since as per the custody certificate there is no other case pending against the petitioner. Suffice to say, the further detention of the petitioner in custody is not required in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the

P a g e | 7 State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

10.

Ordered accordingly.

11.

Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

12.

Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE February 14, 2025 Naveen Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No