Gagandeep Singh @ Gagandeep @ Gagan @ Judge v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision:04.12.2023 Gagandeep Singh @ Gagandeep @ Gagan @ Judge . . . . Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana . . . . Respondent **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Vishal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Petitioner is involved in 14 cases as per the following details: - Sr.

No.

FIR Dated Under Section Police Section 12.01.2023 136 of Electricity Act and 379 & 411 of IPC, 1860 Guhla, Kaithal 12.01.2022 136 & 137 of Electricity Act Guhla, Kaithal 3.

04.02.2023 136 & 137 of Electricity Act Guhla, Kaithal 4.

07.02.2023 136 & 137 of Electricity Act Guhla, Kaithal 5.

07.02.2023 136 of Electricity Act and 379 & 411 of IPC, 1860 Guhla, Kaithal 6.

16.02.2023 136 & 137 of Electricity Act and 120B of IPC, 1860 Guhla, Kaithal 7.

23.02.2023 136 & 137 of Electricity Act Guhla, Kaithal 8.

27.02.2023 136 & 137 of Electricity Act and 411 of IPC, 1860 Guhla, Kaithal 9.

20.02.2023 136 & 137 of Electricity Act and 379 and 411 of IPC, 1860 Guhla, Kaithal 10.

27.02.2023 136 & 137 of Electricity Act and 379 & 411 of IPC, 1860 Guhla, Kaithal 11.

26.04.2022 136 & 137 of Electricity Act Guhla, Kaithal 12.

09.05.2022 136 & 137 of Electricity Act Guhla, Kaithal 13.

09.05.2022 136 & 137 of Electricity Act Cheeka, Kaithal 14.

04.12.2022 136 & 137 of Electricity Act and 379 of IPC, 1860 Cheeka, Kaithal

2.

Ld. counsel contends that though petitioner has been allowed bail in all the aforesaid cases by different Courts on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds of different amounts, but it is very difficult for the petitioner to arrange different sureties for heavy amount taken cumulatively. Ld. counsel contends that direction be given to the Courts concerned to release the petitioner on his personal bond or with one surety of the like amount in all the 14 cases.

3.

Ld. counsel has referred to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl) No(s).8914-8915/2018 decided on 29.10.2018] (Annexure P3) and a decision of this Court in CRM-M-46512019 titled as "Suresh Kumar Bawalia Vs. State of Haryana" decided on 15.02.2019 (Annexure P4).

4.

Notice of Motion.

5.

Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.

6.

The contention of the petitioner to the effect that he has been allowed bail in all the 14 cases, is not disputed. However, ld. State counsel submits that petitioner is required to fulfil the conditions of bail in all the 14 cases by furnishing separate bonds.

7.

In the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky (Supra), similar was the position, inasmuch as, petitioner was involved in 31 cases. He had been allowed bail by different orders on the condition of arranging two sureties each in all the cases. Petitioner had moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC contending that it was not possible for him to arrange 62 sureties. He also prayed to be granted bail on furnishing

personal bond with two sureties in the sum of
1 lakh. Allowing the petition, Hon'ble Supreme Court modified the order of the High Court with the direction that petitioner shall execute a personal bond for
30,000/- and the same bond shall hold good for all the 31 cases and in addition, he shall furnish two sureties, who shall execute the bonds for
30,000/- each, which will hold good for all the 31 cases..

8.

Similar view was taken by this High Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Bawalia (Supra), in which petitioner was involved in as much as 97 FIRs.

9.

Having regard to all the facts and circumstances and the problem being faced by the petitioner in arranging separate sureties in 14 cases, the present petition is allowed. It is directed that petitioner shall execute a personal bond for an amount of ₹1 lakh, which bond shall hold good for all the 14 cases. In addition, petitioner shall also produce 2 sureties, who shall execute bonds in the sum of ₹1 lakh each, which bonds shall hold good for all the 14 cases.

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 04.12.2023


1. Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes

2. Whether reportable?

No