Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manish vs State Of Haryana on 16 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
111 CRM-M-6813-2021.
Date of Decision: 16.08.2021.
Manish ....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana ....Respondent.
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA
----
Present: Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate for applicant/petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
****
Lalit Batra, J.(Oral)
Present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C has been moved by
petitioner-Manish for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.33 dated
28.01.2019 under Sections 201 and 394 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and
Sections 25 and 29 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Narnaund,
District Hisar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that
allegations levelled in the FIR are totally concocted, false and frivolous and
there is no iota of truth therein. He further submits that petitioner is in
custody since 19.03.2019 and he is no more required by the Investigating
Agency for any investigation purpose. He further submits that after
completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
(Challan) has already been presented in Court. He further submits that out
of total 18 prosecution witnesses, six witnesses including complainant/
injured-Pawan Kumar have already been examined. He further submits that
1 of 3
co-accused Sumit @ Monu has already been extended concession of regular
bail by this Court, vide order dated 30.09.2019 passed in CRM-M-32520-
2019. He further urges that out of three other cases, in one case (FIR No.39
dated 02.02.2019 under Sections 398 and 401 IPC and Sections 25 and 29
of Arms Act, Police Station Narnaund, District Hisar), petitioner has already
been acquitted of charges by Trial Court, vide judgment dated 14.02.2020,
whereas in two cases (FIR No.37 dated 27.01.2019 under Sections 379-B,
392 and 397 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Sadar, Sonipat
and FIR No.38 dated 30.01.2019 under Section 379-B IPC read with
Section 34 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Kharkhoda,
District Sonipat), petitioner has already been admitted to regular bail by the
Sessions Court, vide orders dated 10.07.2020 and 19.02.2021 respectively.
He further submits that since trial of the case would take sufficient time to
conclude, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in
custody further and he may be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel while opposing instant
petition has vehemently argued that keeping in view seriousness of offence,
petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone
through the record of the case.
At this stage, without commenting anything on the merits of
the case lest it may prejudice the outcome of the trial but taking into
consideration the fact that petitioner is in custody since 19.03.2019; that
petitioner is no more required by the Investigating Agency for investigation
purpose; that final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Challan) has already
2 of 3
been presented in Court; that testimony of complainant/injured PW-2 Pawan
Kumar have already been recorded; that co-accused Sumit @ Monu has
already been extended concession of regular bail by this Court, vide order
dated 30.09.2019 passed in CRM-M-32520-2019 and since trial of the case
would take sufficient time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served
by detaining the petitioner in custody further, thus, he deserves the
concession of bail.
In view of above, instant petition for grant of regular bail
moved by petitioner-Manish is allowed and he is ordered to be released on
bail on his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Trial
Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Hisar, as the case may be.
(LALIT BATRA)
JUDGE
16.08.2021
jitender
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/ No
Whether Reportable : Yes/ No
3 of 3
