Rahul v. State Of Haryana

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 12.05.2025 RAHUL ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present :

Mr. Anil Kumar Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surender Singh, A.A.G. Haryana.

***** SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 CrPC for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the following case :- FIR No.

Dated Sections Police Station 28.05.2023 302, 323, 34 IPC Bajghera, District Gurugram no. 2), Mo 2.

It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He contends that no specific overt act is attributed to the petitioner and
 

 

   





 




 

   

 



 







    
 









    



-2- 

  !    

  "

 





#  







   



  



  





   

   $

%  

 



 

 !







  !&''( "#

)* 

+ ,

Thus prays for grant of concession of bail to the petitioner. 3.

Per contra, learned State counsel while referring to the status report filed by the State has opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had actively participated in the commission of offence. He has however, not disputed the fact that     





 



 







 





   

 



 $

% 


 



 )
, 4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5.

*

  


     

 
 

 



  

   



     $

%  
 

  

 



  

-%    



 



  &% 


 .



   







  %
 
 *



 





 

   

   /% $
 

   +0 '
 +   +0( !

 +01
 

 
 -% +  %  +0# /% +   +0"

-3-

   Admittedly there is no other material witness to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime left to be examined. As stated above, the remaining witnesses happen to be formal witnesses. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner is at par with co-accused Neeraj, who had been granted the concession of bail by this Court (supra), therefore, no purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody any longer. Moreover, the conclusion of trial to ascertain the criminal liability, if any, of the petitioner is likely to take some more time.

6.

Consequently, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Judge on Duty/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case; undertaking to regularly appear on each and every date; not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court; and not to tamper with evidence of prosecution in any manner. 7.

Any observation made above shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.

(SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 12.05.2025 S.Sharma(syr) i) Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No ii) Whether reportable?

Yes/No