Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jitender @ Rajeev vs State Of Haryana on 15 December, 2022
CRM-M-51845-2022; 1
CRM-M-51852-2022 &
CRM-M-57563-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
243+245
CRM-M-51845-2022
Decided on : 15.12.2022
Jitender @ Rajeev
. . . Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
. . . Respondent
AND
CRM-M-51852-2022
Alok @ Ganesh
. . . Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
. . . Respondents
AND
CRM-M-57563-2022
Ramesh Chand
. . . Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Mr. V. B. Godara, Advocate
for the petitioners(s).
Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG, Haryana.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
This order shall dispose of three petitions bearing No. CRM-
M-51845-2022 filed by Jitender @ Rajeev, CRM-M-51852-2022 filed
by Alok @ Ganesh and CRM-M-57563-2022 filed by Ramesh Chand as
the same are arising out of the same FIR No. 380 dated 29.10.2021 under
Sections 15(2) (4) and 16 of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, 3 & 4 of Explosive
Substance Act, 379, 427 and 201 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of
1 of 4
CRM-M-51852-2022 &
CRM-M-57563-2022
Damage to Public Property Act, 1984
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner Jitender @ Rajeev has been in custody since 12.12.2021, the
petitioner Alok @ Ganesh has been in custody since 20.01.2022 and the
petitioner Ramesh Chand has been in custody since 17.01.2022 and the
investigation qua the present petitioners is complete and the challan has been
presented and there are 23 prosecution witnesses, out of whom three have been
examined, thus, the trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that the
petitioners were not named in the FIR and there is no evidence linking the
petitioners with the alleged offence. It is submitted that the recovery has
already been effected from the petitioners. It is further submitted that the
co-accused of the petitioners namely Firad Ali and Krishan have already
been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated
18.10.2022 passed in CRM-M-41741-2022 and CRM-M-26595-2022
respectively and the cases of the present petitioners are on similar footing
as that of the abovesaid co-accused.
Learned State counsel on the other hand has opposed the
present applications for regular bail and has submitted that the petitioners
are involved in other cases also and in the present case, as per the
allegations in the FIR, when the Supervisor of the Hindustan Petroleum
Limited had reached the spot, he saw that oil had been stolen through the
pipe by putting a valve in the underground oil pipeline of the company
and that on the spot a little oil was leaking and it was found that certain
thieves had, by drilling a hole in the underground oil pipeline, stolen oil
2 of 4
CRM-M-51852-2022 &
CRM-M-57563-2022
by putting valve in the pipe and thus, apart from stealing the oil, they had
also damaged the government property by drilling a hole in the
government underground oil pipeline.
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s), in rebuttal, 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 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 the learned counsel for the parties and
has perused the file.
The petitioner Jitender @ Rajeev has been in custody since
12.12.2021, the petitioner Alok @ Ganesh has been in custody since
20.01.2022 and the petitioner Ramesh Chand has been in custody since
17.01.2022 and the challan has been presented and there are 23
prosecution witnesses, out of whom only three have been examined,
3 of 4
CRM-M-51852-2022 &
CRM-M-57563-2022
thus, the trial is likely to take time. The recovery has already been
effected from the petitioners and the co-accused of the petitioners i.e.
Firad Ali and Krishan have already been granted the concession of
regular bail by this Court vide order dated 18.10.2022 passed in CRM-
M-41741-2022 and CRM-M-26595-2022 respectively.
Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances as
well as in view of the law laid down in Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi's case (supra), the present petitions are 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 them not being 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 cases
which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petitions.
It is made clear that in case, any act is done by the
petitioners 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 petitioners.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
December 15, 2022
Mehak
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
4 of 4
