Brij Pal v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-58979-2024 Date of Decision: 29.11.2024 BRIJ PAL

...Petitioner

Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA

...Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT Present :

Mr. Pradeep Virk, Advocate and Mr. Kamal Deep Sehra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajinder Kumar Banku, DAG, Haryana.

N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant a regular bail in case FIR No. 17 dated 22.08.2024 registered under Section(s) 7 and 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 319(2) of BNS at Police Station ACB, District Faridabad, Haryana.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR in the present case has been got registered by Jitender Dhankhad son of Jaipal Dhankhad, a friend of Tarun Sharma and the complainant is not the aggrieved person in the present case. He further contends that in fact the alleged aggrieved person is Tarun Sharma, who had received a notice regarding theft of electricity on 27.05.2024. He further contends that even the complainant is having criminal

CRM-M-58979-2024 -2antecedents and is a black-mailer and two FIRs i.e. FIR No.38 dated 16.03.2022 and FIR No.176 dated 01.03.2017 were ordered to be registered against him. He further contends that in fact the petitioner was not an employee of the Electricity Board i.e. DHBVN nor had any concern with the allegations leveled by the complainant. He further contends that the petitioner was arrested in the present on 22.08.2024 and after completion of the investigation, challan has already been presented against him. Thus, further custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose. 3.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of regular bail. 4.

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

5.

In the present case, the petitioner is stated to be in custody since 22.08.2024 i.e. last more than 03 months and the challan has already been presented against him. Apart from that, the petitioner is not an employee of DHBVN and is at present employed in a private factory in Barsana, District Mathura. 6.

In view of the above, without commenting any further on the merits, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the

CRM-M-58979-2024 -3satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned.

29.11.2024 ( N.S.SHEKHAWAT) M.Sikka JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No