Yousuf And Anr vs State Of Haryana
2021 Latest Caselaw 3031 P&H

                                                                            -1-
CRM-M-43343-2021


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH
(212)
                                                        CRM-M-43343-2021.
                                                Date of Decision:-26.10.2021.

Yousuf and another

                                                              ......Petitioners

                                     Versus

State of Haryana
                                                             ......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

                           ****

Present:      Mr. Dhirender Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners.

              Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG, Haryana.

              (Through Video Conferencing)

                    ****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)

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

of regular bail to the two petitioners in FIR No.119 dated 05.05.2021,

registered under Sections 395, 397 of IPC, at Police Station Hathin, District

Palwal (Haryana) [Section 412 of IPC, added later on].

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the

present case, as per the prosecution case, 10-11 boys have stolen some

construction material. It is submitted that the petitioners were arrested on

06.05.2021 and the challan has already been filed in the present case and as

per the challan, no recovery has been made from the petitioners, either of

any construction material or any weapon. It is submitted that the petitioners

have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is also submitted that

1 of 3

CRM-M-43343-2021

there are 14 witnesses and none of them have been examined as yet and,

thus, the trial is likely to take time, moreso, in view of the present pandemic

situation and, thus, prayed for grant of regular bail to the petitioners.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the

present petition and has submitted that in fact, petitioner No.1 Yousuf was

named in the FIR itself and the petitioners are involved in one more case

under Section 379 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, in rebuttal, has submitted

that even as per the allegations in the FIR, petitioner No.1-Yousuf is not the

person who was allegedly holding the pistol and no recovery of any pistol

has been made from him or the other petitioner. It is submitted that the

petitioners are already on bail even in the other case. In support of his

arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners 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 it is the facts and

circumstances of the present case which are primarily to be considered for

the purpose of grant of rejection of bail. The relevant portion of paragraph

6 of the said judgment 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-43343-2021

Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances,

moreso, the fact that no recovery of any construction material or weapon

has been made from the petitioners and the petitioners have been in custody

since 06.05.2021 and the challan has already been presented in the present

case and there are as many as 14 witnesses and none of them has been

examined and, thus, the trial is likely to take time and also in view of the

law laid down in Maulana Mohd.'s judgment (supra), the present petition

for regular bail deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioners

are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to

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

the fact that they are 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 26, 2021.

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




                                  3 of 3