Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raja vs State Of Haryana on 16 December, 2022
-1-
CRM-M-44513 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-44513 of 2022
Date of decision: 16.12.2022
Raja
...........Petitioner
versus
The State of Haryana
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Sanpreet Sandhu, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
In terms of order dated 11.11.2022, reply by way of an affidavit
of Kanwaljeet Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, on
behalf of the respondent-State has been filed, which is taken on record.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439
Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No.239 dated 01.04.2020 under
Sections 148, 149, 323, 506, 120-B and 379-B IPC (Section 325 IPC added
later on), registered at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna
Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the
petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 04.08.2020 passed in CRM-M-12101 of 2020 and
thereafter he was granted regular bail by the Court of learned Chief Judicial
1 of 3
CRM-M-44513 of 2022
Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri, vide order dated 24.03.2021. However, on
09.09.2021, since the petitioner was out of station, he intimated his
advocate to move an application for exemption from personal appearance,
however, the same was not filed. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.04.2022
petitioner was declared proclaimed person by the Court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri and petitioner surrendered on 18.07.2022 and
is in custody for the last about five months. He further submits that trial is
likely to take a considerable time to conclude, therefore, no fruitful purpose
would be served by detaining the petitioner behind bars during the trial.
Learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of regular
bail to the petitioner, however, she could not refute the abovesaid
contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
In the status report filed by the learned State counsel, it has
been stated that after the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person on
16.04.2022, FIR No.616 dated 25.07.2022 under Section 174-A IPC has
been registered at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar. It has also been
mentioned that four FIRs are also pending against the petitioner, however,
he is on bail in the said case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that 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 another, 2020 (1)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 831.
2 of 3
CRM-M-44513 of 2022
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."
Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of
the case and the fact that petitioner was already on regular bail and after he
was declared as proclaimed person, he surrendered on 18.07.2022 and is in
custody for the last 04 months and 27 days; trial is in progress, 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)
16.12.2022 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
