Imran vs State Of Haryana
2021 Latest Caselaw 2977 P&H

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH
(205)
                                                        CRM-M-31927-2021.
                                                Date of Decision:-13.10.2021.

Imran

                                                               ......Petitioner

                                     Versus

State of Haryana
                                                             ......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

                           ****

Present:      Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner.

              Mr. Manish Dadwal, AAG, Haryana.

              (Through Video Conferencing)

                    ****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)

This is the first petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.119 dated 05.05.2021 under

Sections 395, 397 and 412 of IPC, registered at Police Station Hathin,

District Palwal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the

present case, even as per the prosecution version, the petitioner is not the

person who has committed the offences under Sections 395, 397 of IPC and

even as per the disclosure statements, made by the co-accused who are

stated to have committed the said offences, the stolen articles were sold to

the petitioner who is stated to be a scrap dealer. Learned counsel for the

petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on

08.05.2021 and in the present case, challan has been filed and no

1 of 3

CRM-M-31927-2021

prosecution witness has been examined and, thus, the trial is likely to take

time moreso, in view of the present pandemic.

Learned State counsel has opposed the present bail application

and has made a specific reference to para 4 of the reply filed by the State, as

per which the recovery of the stolen articles had been effected from the

petitioner and it is on account of the said recovery, offence under Section

412 of IPC has been added and the punishment with respect to the said

offence is also very severe. It is further submitted that the petitioner is

involved in one more case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has relied upon

a judgment dated 16.01.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2012 titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi

Vs. State of U.P. and others 2012 (2) SCC 382, to contend that as per

settled law, it is the facts of the case at hand which are required to be

considered for the purpose of deciding the bail application. Reference has

been made to the relevant portion of paragraph 6 which is reproduced

hereinbelow:-

"As observed by the High Court, merely on the

basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second

respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of

the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which

he has been charged and other circumstances such as

possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court

etc."

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2 of 3

CRM-M-31927-2021

Keeping in view the fact that as per the prosecution case, the

petitioner was not one of the 10 persons who had committed the offences

under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC and even as per the disclosure statement

of the co-accused, the stolen goods had been sold to the petitioner, who is

stated to be a scrap dealer and also the fact that the petitioner has been in

custody since 08.05.2021 and the challan has already been filed in the

present case and the trial is likely to take time since, no prosecution witness

has been examined, moreso, in view of the present pandemic and it would

be a moot question during trial as to whether the petitioner had knowledge

that the said goods purchased by him were stolen goods from committing

dacoity/robbery or not, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present

petition.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner

is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to the

fact that he is not required in any other case.

However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final

expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed

independently of the observations made in the present case which are only

for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application.

(VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE October 13, 2021.

sandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned:-                                       Yes/No
Whether Reportable:-                                              Yes/No




                                  3 of 3