Ganga Ram vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 10277 P&H

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH
233
                                                                CRM-M-31254-2022
                                                         Date of decision: 31.08.2022

GANGA RAM
                                                                       ....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

STATE OF HARYANA
                                                                     ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
                         *****

Present :    Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG Haryana.
                                  *****

VIKAS BAHL. J. (ORAL)

This is the second petition filed under Section 439 CrPC for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.239 dated 19.08.2021 registered

under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section

61 of the Excise Act (Section 120-B IPC added later on) at Police Station Kaithal,

District Kaithal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in

custody since 11.03.2022, investigation in the case is complete and challan has

been presented. Prosecution has cited as many as 16 witnesses but none have been

examined so far thus, the trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that as

per the case of the prosecution, petitioner was not apprehended at the spot and the

recovery in the present case had already been effected thus, no useful purpose

would be served in keeping the petitioner in further incarceration. It is submitted

that the earlier bail petition was withdrawn by the petitioner on 11.05.2022 and

thereafter, a period of 03 months and 20 days has elapsed and still no witness has

1 of 3

CRM-M-31254-2022 -2 -

been examined till date. It is further submitted that the case is triable by

Magistrate.

Learned State counsel has opposed the petition for regular bail and

submitted that the petitioner is involved in one more case. It is submitted that

although the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot but mobile phone of the

petitioner was recovered from the trolla from which 12000 bottles of illicit english

liquor had been recovered and shows that the petitioner is involved in the present

case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal has submitted that in all

the other cases the petitioner is on bail and has relied upon the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and

another", reported as 2012 (2) SCC 382 to contend that the facts and

circumstances of the present case are to be seen and the bail application of the

petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in

another case. The relevant portion 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 learned counsel for the parties and has perused

the paperbook.

Petitioner is in custody since 11.03.2022 and the investigation in the

case is complete. No witness has been examined out of 16 prosecution witnesses

and thus, the trial is likely to take time. The case is triable by a Magistrate. The

2 of 3

CRM-M-31254-2022 -3 -

petitioner was not apprehended at the spot and recovery of liquor has already been

effected and no further recovery is to be made from the present petitioner.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to

be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of

the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to him not being required in any other

case.

However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by the

petitioner to threaten the complainant or any of the witnesses, then it would be

open to the State to move an application for cancellation of bail granted to the

petitioner.

Nothing stated above shall be construed as an 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 petition.

                                                           (VIKAS BAHL)
                                                              JUDGE
August 31, 2022
S.Sharma(syr)
        Whether speaking/reasoned         :       Yes/No
        Whether reportable                :       Yes/No




                                         3 of 3