Pradhuman v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-60083-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision:-5.1.2023 Pradhuman ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ankit Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Dev Kaushik, Advocate and Mr. Sauhard Singh , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana, assisted by Inspector Seema.

***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner, who is employed as Junior Engineer in Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), seeks grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.27, dated 31.8.2022, Police Station SVB Karnal, under Sections 7, 7-A, 13(1) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2.

The allegations, in nutshell, are that the petitioner had demanded a bribe of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant so as to issue a completion certificate in respect of construction of a house. It is the specific case of the prosecution that a trap was laid and the petitioner was caught red-handed and the tainted currency notes of Rs.50,000/- were recovered. PANKAJ KAKKAR 2023.01.05 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-60083-2022 (O&M) 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that, in any case, since the challan already stands presented, his detention would not serve any useful purpose. 4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner was caught red-handed at the spot while in possession of tainted currency notes, his complicity is clearly evident. Learned State counsel has, however, informed that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 4 months and that charges are yet to be framed and 25 PWs have been cited. It has also been informed that the petitioner otherwise is not involved in any other case.

5.

This Court has considered the rival submissions. 6.

Without commenting anything as regards merits of the case but having regard to the custody of the petitioner and the fact that the trial has not even commenced and as many as 25 PWs have been cited, this Court is of the opinion that further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose as conclusion of trial is likely to consume time. 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. 5.1.2023 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No PANKAJ KAKKAR 2023.01.05 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document