Punjab-Haryana High Court
[email protected] vs State Of Haryana on 2 August, 2022
CRM-M-27291-2022 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(105+224) CRM-M-27291-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.08.2022
Rajesh @ Raja ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Dhruv Shah, AAG, Haryana.
3K 2k 2 3
VIKAS BAHL, J.(QRAL)
CRM-24362-2022
Application for placing on record report under Section 173
Cr.P.C (Annexure P-8), the medical history of the petitioner (Annexure P-9)
and photographs (Annexure P-10) is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Document Annexures P-8 to P-10 are taken on record.
Main Case
1. This is a first petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR
No.381, dated 04.05.2022 under Sections 384, 386, 120-B and 506 of IPC,
1860 registered at Police Station City Karnal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR had
been registered on the basis of a secret information and as per the secret
information, it is Dharmender, co-accused, who had been taking money by
way of extortion from the vegetable vendors in old vegetable market, Karnal
MANPREET SINGH and it was not the present petitioner who was extorting money from them. It is
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-27291-2022 (O&M) 2
submitted that the only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that the said
Dharmender was extracting money by using the name of the present
petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot be implicated
without there being any material or statement to show that the petitioner was
extracting money from the vegetable vendors. It is further submitted that the
petitioner has been in custody since 06.05.2022 and challan has been
presented and there are total 21 witnesses, out of which, none have been
examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present
application for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner and has submitted that
the statement of 13 witnesses, who have their vends/carts in the old Sabji
Mandi, Karnal have also been recorded, who have stated that the said
co-accused Dharmender has been putting them in fear and has been extracting
money from them by using the name of the present petitioner. It is further
submitted that there is a disclosure statement of the petitioner, on the basis of
which, an amount of Rs.7,500/- has been recovered from him. It is further
submitted that the petitioner is involved in several other cases and has a
criminal background.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal has submitted that
the said amount of Rs.7,500/- was not extortion money, rather, the same had
been saved by the petitioner for his medical treatment. It is submitted that the
petitioner is a chronic patient of liver disease and diabetes. Learned counsel
for the petitioner in rebuttal has further 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 while deciding a bail
application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely
MANPREET SINGH
2022.08.04 15:30
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-27291-2022 (O&M) 3
on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other cases. 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."
5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper-book.
6. The petitioner has been in custody since 06.05.2022 and challan
has already been presented and there are total 21 witnesses, out of which, none
have been examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time. As per the
prosecution case, it is Dharmender, who had been extracting money from the
various vegetable vendors of old Sabji Mandi, Karnal and it was not the
petitioner, who had been extracting the money and the only allegation levelled
with respect to the petitioner was that the said Dharmender was using the
name of the petitioner to extort money.
7. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances and also
the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the abovesaid judgment,
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 him not being required in any other
case.
8. However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by the
petitioner to threaten or influence the complainant or any of the witnesses,
then it would be open to the State to move an application for cancellation of
MANPREET SINGH 1 it]
MANPREET SINGH hail granted to the petitioner.
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-27291-2022 (O&M) 4
9. 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 petition.
( VIKAS BAHL )
JUDGE
August 02, 2022
Manpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned __: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
MANPREET SINGH
2022.08.04 15:30
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
