Amandeep @ Baba v. State Of Haryana



  
       
  





!

"#$%$ &'

 ( #)*+,  



  




'

 -. /0 /
 

/ 

 
 
 
 

 



!"
#

$


%%% 

/ ,  1.2' & 




 

 

'( (

( 



(
)*
!
++,

-.

/- -0/1
( 
 
+1.

+12
+1-
+,2
-0/3+2

*

4
/5,0
  
-6


 
/161
7 
+2/
+16
+15

* 4
 

 
 
+12
+1-
-0/3+2

* 4

 
-6


 



8
  

4 '
9 
:



-


 

 

 

 



  


 
 

)*


(

 
 

 
(

 
 

 
'(


(  

 
( 

-, /- -0/1 


  


 
# 


#
((
#





(
(
! ;

/+

;6600
& 
  

(


#
 
#

 

 ( 

 #



#





(



& 






  
 
 '
( 

#


(

 



+0 0003;

&

& 
 


  &

 

# #



&


#  <(
(






 
  

+


(

)*
(
 (
# 
44&
(

 


# 
 
 
 (
"

 
 


 


 =
#
'
& 
 # 
#



 

(

  

!(

:


 

(

 

 
 
 


#  
#
"

(

 


(  




-0 0003;


 




>  
 
+,6
+1-
+12

#
 
+2

* 4
#

   
(
 
 



 


#
 (
 


 ? 
 
; 
"
@



#
 

 (
 
# 

 
(
 
>

 



 
  
#
 

 

&

((


+

*

(




 

 




  
  

 


#



 
)*

   


 


*

#

  







 
 



  
-.

/0 -0-2
His further detention would not serve any useful purpose. He has been acquitted in all other cases registered against him. As such, it is urged that he deserves to be released on bail. 4.

Status report has been filed by respondent-AAG, Haryana.

Learned AAG, Haryana has argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner suffered disclosure statement in some other case and then in this case, admitting his complicity in the crime. He also got recovered some of the robbed money. He was directly involved in withdrawing cash amount of Rs. 20,000/- from ATM booth of HDFC Bank by using ATM card of the complainant. He is a habitual offender since nine other cases have been registered against him. He has even been convicted in one of such cases. There are chances of petitioner's absconding, if extended benefit of bail. Trial is at its fag end. Therefore, it is argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.

6.

The petitioner along with co-accused is alleged to have abducted the victim and robbed him of his belongings including money. He is also alleged to have withdrawan an amount of Rs. 20,000/- by using the ATM card of the complainant on the night of incident itself. However, when the complainant appeared as witness before the Court, he did not identify the petitioner as one of his abductors. The prosecution has relied upon some CCTV footages, but as asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner and as conceded by learned AAG, Haryana, identity of the petitioner has not been established from these CCTV footages. It is well settled proposition of law that lodging of other criminal cases against an accused cannot be stated to be a ground for dis-entitling him from concession of bail. The petitioner is in

custody since 27.10.2024. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Keeping in view the discussion as made above, but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the same is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.

7.

Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

3

/ 4

  ( #)*+,