Pawan @ Poni v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-62452-2023 -12024:PHHC:005673 243 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-62452-2023 Decided on : 15.01.2024 Pawan @ Poni ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rahul Mohan, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral) 1.

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking concession of regular bail in case FIR No.321 dated 01.10.2023 under Sections 25-54-59 of Arms Act and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station City Mahendergarh District Mahendergarh.

2.

Learned counsel for the State, at the outset, has vehemently opposed the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner for granting him the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is a man of criminal antecedents, which is evident from his involvement in as many as 14 criminal cases of similar nature. Learned State counsel further submits that though challan stands presented, however, charges have not yet been framed. Hence, prayer for dismissal of the present petition has been made.

SONIA BURA 2024.01.16 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-62452-2023 -22024:PHHC:005673 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, asserted that no doubt, the petitioner was involved in a number of other criminal cases of similar nature, however, he had been falsely implicated in those cases; the petitioner had already been enlarged on bail in all the other criminal cases, which stood registered against him.

4.

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

5.

Prima facie, the petitioner comes across as a habitual offender for which he does not deserve the concession of bail. It also needs to be observed here that the petitioner was on bail in the other criminal cases, which stood registered against him, when the crime in question was committed.

6.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court does not deem it fit to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. 7.

However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

15.01.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No SONIA BURA 2024.01.16 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document