State Of Haryana v. Umesh Sharma

CRM-M-64041-2024 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-64041-2024 Date of decision: 08.09.2025 STATE OF HARYANA ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

UMESH SHARMA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Tapan Masta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for the appellant.

Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate and Mr. Komal Parveen Singh, Advocate for the respondent. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed under Sections 483(b) (3) of BNSS (Section 439(2) Cr.P.C) for cancellation of regular bail granted to the respondent vide order dated 29.10.2019 in FIR No. 222 date 25.05.2019 under Sections 420,467,468,471,120-B of IPC and Sections 61-1-14 of Excise Act registered at Police Station, Thanesar Sadar, District Kurukshetra. 2.

Learned State counsel submits that the respondent has been granted regular bail vide order dated 29.10.2019 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. He further submits that the respondent has involved himself in another FIR No. 203 dated 22.06.2024 under Sections 406,420,467,468,471,473,120-B of IPC and Section 61(1) of Excise Act registered at Police Station, Chhapar, District Yamuna Nagar. The respondent Renu Rawat 2025.09.09 16.38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-64041-2024 -2is working as GM-Finance and account in N.V. Group and being a Manager has played an active role in dispatch of liquor in illegal manner. He further submits that the respondent is habitual of committing such type of crime again and again.

3.

Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent in the Court today and the same is taken on record. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has been implicated in the subsequent case as well as in the present case only on the basis of disclosure statement and there is no evidence to corroborate the role of the respondent.

4.

I have heard the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record.

5.

Keeping in view the fact that there is no direct allegation against the respondent and apart from the disclosure statement there is no other evidence on record against him, the prayer made for the cancellation of bail is hereby declined. The present petition stands dismissed. (H.S.GREWAL) 08.09.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No Renu Rawat 2025.09.09 16.38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document