Ram Avtar v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-53676-2024 Date of Decision: 02.12.2024 RAM AVTAR

...Petitioner

Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA

...Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT Present :

Mr. Mandeep Nehra, Advocate and Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajinder Kumar Banku, DAG, Haryana.

N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to grant regular bail in case FIR No.203 dated 22.06.2024 registered under Section(s) 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 473 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Haryana Amendment Act Bill 2020) and Sections 7, 8 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (added later on) at Police Station Chhappar, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner was driving the truck from which the illicit liquor was confiscated. He further contends that the petitioner was employed as a driver on 19.06.2024 and owner namely

CRM-M-53676-2024 -2 Rinku had got the license to run the L-13 only on 18.06.2024. Learned counsel further contends that Rinku who was the main accused in the present case has already been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel has further placed reliance on the orders Annexure P3 and Annexure P-4 respectively, whereby the other accused persons namely Brij Pal Rana and Sushil have also been admitted to bail. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 22.06.2024 and challan has already been presented against him.

3.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of regular bail. 4.

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

5.

It is not in dispute that the owner of the alleged L-13 has already been granted the concession of bail by this Court. Similarly placed co-accused namely Brij Pal Rana and Sushil have already been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively. The petitioner is in custody since 22.06.2024 and no meaningful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

6.

In view of the above, without commenting any further on the merits, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered

CRM-M-53676-2024 -3 to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned.

02.12.2024 ( N.S.SHEKHAWAT) M.Sikka JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No