Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ankit Rana vs State Of Haryana on 15 December, 2022
CRM-M-30119-2022(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CRM-M-30119-2022(O&M)
Date of decision : 15.12.2022
Ankit Rana
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Sandeep Singh Jattan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Surinder Kumar Dagar, DAG, Haryana.
Ms.Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate
for the complainant.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
This is the second petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant
of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR no.266 dated 17.12.2021 registered
under Sections 120-B, 148, 341, 307, 395, 397, 427 IPC read with Section
149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Ambala
Sadar, District Ambala.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been in custody since 15.01.2022 and the investigation is
complete and the challan has already been presented and there are 25
witnesses, out of which, none have been examined and thus, the trial is
likely to take time and the subject matter of dispute involved in the present
case was a plot measuring 540 square yards and the matter has been
compromised between the petitioner and the complainant. It is further
1 of 4
submitted that no specific allegations have been levelled against the present
petitioner with respect to the injuries caused to any person, although it has
been stated that he along with 3/ 4 persons had caused injuries and taken the
car of the complainant party. It is stated that the petitioner had earlier filed a
petition for regular bail which was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.04.2022
and liberty was granted to file a fresh petition after the complainant is
examined but in spite of lapse of more than 8 months, the complainant has
not been examined on account of the fact that the other accused persons are
not regularly appearing. It is further stated that on account of said
subsequent circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to file the present second
petition.
Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the
matter has been compromised and they have no objection in case the present
petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted the concession of regular
bail.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the
present petition for regular bail and has submitted that the name of the
petitioner has been specifically mentioned in the FIR and he, along with
other co-accused allegedly caused 8 injuries to the complainant, out of
which one injury has attracted Section 307 IPC. It is further submitted that
one country made pistol and live cartridges have been recovered from the
present petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is involved in several other
cases.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, 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
2 of 4
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 learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper book.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances
moreso, the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 15.01.2022 and
the investigation is complete and the challan has already been presented and
there are 25 witnesses, out of which, none have been examined as yet and
thus, the trial is likely to take time and also the fact that the dispute involved
in the present case was on account of a plot measuring 540 square yards
which, as per learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
complainant, has been resolved and compromise has been effected between
the parties and also in view of the law laid down in Maulana's case (supra),
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 the petitioner indulges in
any other criminal activities, then it would be open to the State and the
3 of 4
complainant 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.
Pending miscellaneous applications stand disposed of in view
of the abovesaid order.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
December 15, 2022
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
