Imran Shafi v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: March 24th, 2025 Imran Shafi .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Harsh Bargat, Mr. Govind Arora and Mr. Imran Mohammad, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J. (ORAL) This is a second petition filed by the petitioner seeking the concession of regular bail in FIR No.32 dated 28.01.2023 registered under Sections 201, 380, 401, 411, 454 of the IPC, at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been languishing in custody since 12.03.2023 in a case of false implication. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner came to be nominated as an accused on the basis of a disclosure statement allegedly suffered by co-accused Rashid, who claimed that the petitioner was also part of the gang, which had committed robbery at the house of the complainant on 28.01.2023. Learned counsel submits that the evidentiary value of the disclosure statement is of a weak nature for which

-2the petitioner cannot be made to languish in custody for an indefinite period of time. Learned counsel has also asserted that since majority of the witnesses have been examined, there can now be no apprehension of the petitioner intimidating or influencing any of the witnesses. A prayer has, therefore, been made for extending the concession of bail to the petitioner.

3.

Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the prayer and submissions made by counsel opposite. It has been submitted that the petitioner is a member of a gang, which has been involved in such like crimes pan India. It has been submitted, on instructions, that the fingerprints, which were lifted from the place of occurrence by the investigating agency, matched with that of co-accsued Rashid, who on being then arrested in the present case, during his interrogation, revealed the participation of all the other accused, including the petitioner. Learned State counsel has submitted that recovery of jewellery (gold and diamond) was made from the petitioner following his arrest on 12.03.2023, which was in turn identified by the complainant.

Hence, it left no manner of doubt about the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence in question. It has still further been submitted by the learned counsel that the trial is nearing completion, with only five prosecution witnesses remaining to be examined. Hence, the petitioner's prayer be declined as there is every likelihood that he could misuse the concession of bail and abscond during trial leading to further delay in the conclusion of the trial.

4.

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

-35.

It is a matter of record that the petitioner is involved in as many as 22 criminal cases, out of which he stands convicted in four cases. Most of the cases are identical in nature and pertain to occurrences in different parts of the country, including Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Gujarat and U.P. Prima facie, the petitioner does indeed come across as a member of an organized gang of robbers. 6.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove and in the wake of the stage of the trial, this Court is not inclined to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner. 7.

Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. 8.

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.

March 24th, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No