Narender v. State Of Haryana

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:- 17.8.2021 Narender .... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Ravinder Phogat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sheenu Sura, DAG, Haryana, assisted by SI Bijender.

(Proceedings conducted through video conferencing) ***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral) 1.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered against him vide FIR No.58, dated 10.3.2019, Police Station City Dadri, District Charkhi Dadri, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 2.

The allegations, in nutshell, are that the petitioner had participated in recruitment process conducted by the Army and had appeared in the physical test on 4.10.2017, medical test on 5.10.2017 and written test on 26.11.2017 by representing himself as Amit s/o Krihsan. Similar

- 2 - allegations of impersonation are also levelled in the FIR against Deepak Kumar and Pardeep.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the instant case and that in any case, the case is mainly based on documentary evidence which is already with the police and as such his custodial interrogation is not required. It has further been submitted that since two of the identically situated coaccused namely Pardeep and Deepak have already been extended the benefit of the anticipatory bail vide order dated 29.10.2019 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner also deserves the same concession on the ground of parity.

4.

Learned State counsel has however, opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and had impersonated on three different occasions and as such does not deserve the concession of bail. Learned State counsel has however, informed that the petitioner has already joined investigation and that his custodial interrogation is not required as challan already stands presented. Learned State counsel could not dispute the fact that two of the co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail.

5.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 6.

Having regard to the nature of offence and the fact that the petitioner has already joined investigation and challan stands presented and while also noticing that two identically situated co-accused have already been granted bail, the petition merits acceptance and is

- 3 - hereby accepted. The interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 24.12.2019 are hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

17.8.2021 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL) Mohan JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No