Prince v. State Of Haryana And Another


   
  

  


 



 !

"# $!%&'&"()

* +* *




***! & &"(!, '

-..

.    



***!'/"($!( ' 
 )

0 1 * .


-

.*

 2

 



  

 

 !

 

" # 

$ %



& #'(   )( *+ %   

&(

$  %

 -

.*

 23 *

,4

,   $ %

$ 

-./ ! ( 0   1/$ 0

$0)

%



 ) 02+3 /. 
1415 

6 7-18 -1

 +     & 
.81   

 -  90

 


./ 0   

  : 

   , (

; % 



0

:% 

 )

:%

 



  



$0

< ) 0 )(:% 

$ 0 0)  # (

  



$0

# ( 

0 :)2  %%

 $    

   )  

     )=

  

) 0 )(:% 

2  %(

3 
51111*   

$ $

   

   $

 %

> 



,

  

3 $  

) 

$ )   

0   )((

)  $!  $ )  $"

  (

"

 (0 $  $  $!  $  (0 

3%'  



) 

%

   ) 

# (!     (    

 )(  +   % %   

%

 

$# ; ,$ ( %%

  %  %% $;   

0   

   

# (  ) 

+  



('



$ ($    

0

0

(  ,(  





   

   $ 

  0 

(    )  

 $ $ (3%

  (  0 ) 

  % % (

%  ) <    $()  

) ,( 

 % ? 

)

   $

  

  0 3 
51111*



$  )

 

/1/1-  ) 

+ @  )  





/

 % 

   $()   3 /  $   0    

 2 

(0

 

(

     3 5  )

 $ 

  0%(

  6$ $

7$     

  

(

(       %  $

('

 %( ) $  

0

 / Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner was arrested on 25.08.2025 after obtaining his production warrants and a sum of Rs.10,000/- was allegedly recovered from him. He contends that false allegations and accusations have been levelled against the petitioner about having been paid Rs.23 lakhs whereas during the police investigation, payment of only Rs.14 lakhs could be shown. He contends that out of the said amount of Rs.14 lakhs, a sum of Rs.5 lakhs has already been returned by the petitioner. He contends that even though the case set up by the official respondent is that money had been transferred in certain different accounts, however, no such person has been nominated as an accused.

He contends that the petitioner is not involved in any other similar case and that only one criminal case under the Arms Act has been registered against the petitioner. It is contended that investigation in the case is complete. He further submits that out of 16 witnesses cited by the prosecution, none has been examined so far. He further contends that the case is triable by the Judicial Magistrate, hence, the petitioner be enlarged on bail.



 % $

 

)

 5 &  $   %



 

-

  0 ) $%

 

)   $  % A $     00  



  %%  () 00  0

(  

8%

  8   % $ B( ) %



 

 (

  

%

 0 



 ) %    

 

$ (  

* =  ) 

 



 



 $     0 % $$   )

  

$ (%

 0 



  )   $  

0

 % 

 

  )  00 )(

$  %



 4  ' 0  

$ %    0



 $ 0



( % $ 18 

  $$

 ) ))( & $  0 



 

 %

    (

    

0

%



%  %

 0  

$ 3 
-   6 $   3 5     ( )   7 % 

%

  ,%

  

) 

)

$   0 B   ) )

*  ( )

   $

 , & *: ( 0 

  . +    %

 

A  (  

  $

  ( %

 

      ( 

 

( 

(  , ) 

 )

 

)

  A% 

   &     

5

)   $ ) 

,%5

*

-

.*

 2 ,6 ,",