Jasbir Singh v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-59057-2024 Date of Decision: 02.12.2024 JASBIR SINGH

...Petitioner

Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA

...Respondent

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

Mr. Mannu Sheokand, 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 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to grant regular bail in case FIR No.17 dated 02.09.2024 registered under Section(s) 7A, 13(1)(b), 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 and 215 of BNS at Police Station ACB, Rohtak, Division Rohtak, Haryana. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case the petitioner had never raised any demand nor had accepted any bribe from the complainant. He further contends that even Gaurav Sharma had not accepted the bribe at the instance of the petitioner and he has been falsely involved due to a personal dispute with the wife of some official of Anti Corruption Bureau. He further contends that Gaurav Sharma from whom the recovery was effected in the present case has already been arrested by the police. The MOHIT 2024.12.03 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-59057-2024 -2 petitioner was arrested in the present case on 02.09.2024 and is in custody since then. Learned counsel further contends that the challan has already been presented against him in the present case. 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, co-accused namely Gaurav Sharma was arrested by the police, while he was allegedly accepting the bribe from the complainant. The petitioner was also arrested subsequently on 02.09.2024 and is continuing in the custody for the last more than two months. After completion of investigation, challan has already been presented against him. Thus, his further custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose.

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 satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned.

02.12.2024 ( N.S.SHEKHAWAT) M.Sikka JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No MOHIT 2024.12.03 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment