Rahul v. State Of Haryana
220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-60470-2023 Date of decision : 28.02.2024 RAHUL ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :
Mr. Joginder Siwach, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.113 dated 20.02.2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 186, 307, 323, 332, 353, 427, 120-B of the IPC, 1860 at Police Station Azad Nagar, District Hisar.
2.
As per the contents of the FIR it was alleged as under :
! " #$%&&
'
!( )$* # && %)$* + $&%,,%,)
- $%)% .
./ 0
.
+ )$1 0 2
' &&* '
3 ( 0+
+
"
+ "
+45* + -+
2
/ 3 -+2 ' 2
2 ''
- 3 -+
3 2 -
-+2
- 3
3 2
3
3 2 -
2
'
2
6
-2
+ -+
3
'
2
' ''
-+ ' -+
76+ 3 #+
3
+
3 3
22
2 3
"
3"
"
02
3
' 8
3
+
3 ,5)
-2
+ -+-+
92 +
6
( 92 !( )$* #5&&5%)$* 2 -
:
-
-2 ' ; 3.
Custody Certificate has been produced. As per the same the petitioner has undergone actual custody of more than 10 months and 2 days by now and has clean antecedents. 4.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no role as per the contents of the FIR and has been nominated on the disclosure made by Ajay during the course of investigation which itself would be barred by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Further relies upon order dated 23rd of January, 2024 passed in CRM-M No.2532 of 2024 whereby coaccused Ravi @ Ravi Kumar stands admitted to bail. Thus, he submits that the petitioner deserves parity viz-a-viz Ravi @ Ravi Kumar as well. 5.
Per contra, State Counsel is opposing bail plea on the ground that the danda has been recovered from the petitioner. However, he does not dispute that the challan stands presented and out of 13 most material
witnesses, 2 stand examined. Thus, the trial is not going to conclude in near future. 6.
Having heard rival contentions of the parties and after going through records of the case, keeping in view the nature of allegations against the petitioner and nature of incriminating evidence him, and the fact that the petitioner has clean antecedents and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 7.
Needless to say that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. February 28, 2024 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No