Punjab-Haryana High Court
Keshav vs State Of Haryana on 15 December, 2022
-1-
CRM-M-39415 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-39415 of 2022
Date of decision: 15.12.2022
Keshav
...........Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Birla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, DAG, Haryana.
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439
Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No.130 dated 19.02.2022 under
Section 379-A IPC registered at Police Station Shivaji Colony, Rohtak.
FIR in the present case was registered on the complaint of
complainant Parveen, who reported to the police that on 19.02.2022 at about
7.40 p.m. she went out for her house from PGIMS, Rohtak, after doing her
job. When she took packet of milk then a boy came from back side on a
scooty and snatched her purse and ran away. Her purse containing her
Aadhar Card, ID Card, Rs.3,000-4,000/- and her mobile phone of marka
Vivo.
On issuance of notice of motion, reply by way of an affidavit of
Vivek Kundu, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, has been filed on
behalf of respondent-State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
1 of 3
CRM-M-39415 of 2022
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of
disclosure statement suffered by him and recovery was effected which was
planted on him. He submits that he is in custody since 20.02.2022 and
challan has already been presented and nothing is to be recovered from the
petitioner now. Conclusion of trial is likely to take a considerable time.
Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner
behind bars during the pendency of trial.
Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is
involved in three other cases of similar nature and details of the said FIRs is
as under: -
"1. FIR No.86 dated 18.02.2021 under Sections 379A/34
IPC, P.S. Shivaji Colony, Rohtak.
2. FIR No.87 dated 18.02.2021 under Section 379A IPC,
P.S. Shivaji Colony, Rohtak.
3. FIR No.103 dated 24.02.2021 under Section 379A IPC,
P.S. Shivaji Colony, Rohtak."
He further submits that out of seven witnesses four, including
the complainant have been examined; charges have already been framed and
now the case is fixed for prosecution evidence.
To counter the abovesaid assertion made by learned State
counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact all
these cases have been planted on the petitioner as perusal of the above FIRs
would show that two FIRs have been registered against the petitioner on the
same very day and all the three FIRs have been registered in the same police
station. He further submits that in all the aforesaid three cases, petitioner is
on bail and mere pendency of other cases cannot be made ground to deny
the bail to the petitioner in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and
2 of 3
CRM-M-39415 of 2022
another, 2020 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 831.
To the same effect is the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2)
SCC 382, wherein it has been held as under: -
"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."
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
Keeping in view the custody period of the petitioner, which is
09 months and 23 days; challan already stands presented; out of seven
witnesses four, including the complainant have been examined; charges
have already been framed; no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner
at this stage and trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude,
however, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail during trial on his furnishing bail
bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court.
The petition stands disposed off accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
15.12.2022 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
