Punjab-Haryana High Court
[email protected] vs State Of Haryana on 26 August, 2022
CRM-M-19721-2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(209)
CRM-M-19721-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: - 26.08.2022
Nitin @ Ginni
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:- Mr. Joginder Sharma, Advocate
for Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
CRM-30883-2022
Present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
for placing on record the statements as Annexures P-5 to P-7.
Application is allowed, as prayed for. The statements
(Annexures P-5 to P-7), are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
CRM-M-19721-2022
This is a first petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.123 dated 21.02.2020, under
Sections 307, 392 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections
25/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Shivaji Colony,
Rohtak.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
1 of 4
CRM-M-19721-2022 (O&M) -2-
petitioner has been in custody since 11.08.2020 and the investigation is
complete and the challan has been presented and there are total 15
prosecution witnesses, out of whom, 11 witnesses are yet to be examined
and thus, the trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that the
petitioner is not named in the FIR and was implicated on the basis of
disclosure statement of petitioner recorded in FIR No.67 dated
21.02.2020 and that no recovery was made from the present petitioner. It
is further submitted that the FIR in the present case was recorded on the
statement of Sudhir, who was an eye witness and as per the FIR, Jagbir
who is owner of the petrol pump and Naresh who is a salesman, had
arrived at the spot and all the said three witnesses have been examined
and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been
declared hostile. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted
that there is no injury which has been declared dangerous to life in the
present case.
Learned State counsel on the other hand has opposed the
present petition for regular bail and has submitted that the petitioner is
involved in three more cases.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has submitted
that the petitioner is on bail in the said cases 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
while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner
cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in
2 of 4
CRM-M-19721-2022 (O&M) -3-
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."
This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
gone through the paper-book.
The petitioner has been in custody since 11.08.2020 and the
investigation is complete and the challan has been presented and there are
total 15 prosecution witnesses, out of whom, 11 witnesses are yet to be
examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time. The petitioner is not
named in the FIR and sought to be implicated on the basis of disclosure
statement of petitioner made in FIR No.67 dated 21.02.2020, but no
recovery has been made from the petitioner. There is no injury which has
been declared to be dangerous to life. As per the FIR, Sudhir, Jagbir, who
is the owner of the petrol pump where the alleged occurrence had taken
place and Naresh, who is a salesman, are the star witnesses in the present
case and all the said witnesses have been examined and they have not
supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile.
Sudhir and Naresh have been examined as PW-2 and PW-4, respectively
and in their statements, they have specifically stated that they have seen
the accused persons including the petitioner, but they are not the persons
who committed the alleged offence. Jagbir has been examined as PW-3
3 of 4
CRM-M-19721-2022 (O&M) -4-
and he has stated that the police did not record his statement and he has
not seen the incident of snatching.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, 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.
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 bail granted to the petitioner.
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 )
August 26, 2022 JUDGE
naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
4 of 4
