Madan vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 17311 P&H

CRM-M-58474-2022                                                      1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                   CHANDIGARH
                      ***

CRM-M-58474-2022 Date of decision : 20.12.2022

Madan

... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present: Mr.Umesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vishal Malik, DAG, Haryana.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

This is the first petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner in FIR no.196 dated 24.09.2021 registered

under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station

Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar, during the pendency of the trial.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner has been in custody since 17.01.2022 and the investigation is

complete and the challan has already been presented and there are 19

witnesses, out of which, 4 have been examined and thus, the trial is likely to

take time. It is further submitted that as per the FIR, the allegation of duping

the complainant to the extent of Rs.4,85,000/- for providing a job has been

levelled against the present petitioner and the co-accused Varun and the

complainant had compromised the matter and said Varun had filed a

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR on the basis of

compromise which has been allowed qua him by a coordinate Bench of this 1 of 3

Court vide order dated 06.09.2022. It is stated that the case is triable by a

Magistrate and the entire case is based on documentary evidence and no

purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further incarceration.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the

present petition for regular bail and has submitted that in the present case

school certificates, aadhar card, 4 photogrpahs of the complainant, and

Rs.4,85,000/- was duped and out of Rs.4,85,000/-, Rs. 2 lacs has been

transferred into the account of the present petitioner and Rs.15,000/- have

been recovered from the present petitioner. It is further submitted that the

petitioner is involved in two 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

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

2 of 3

moreso, the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 17.01.2022 and

the investigation is complete and the challan has already been presented and

there are 19 witnesses, out of which, 4 have been examined and thus, the

trial is likely to take time and also the fact that although allegation has also

been levelled against co-accused Varun in the FIR but the matter has been

compromised between co-accused Varun and the complainant and a

petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by Varun for quashing of the FIR

on the basis of compromise has been allowed by the coordinate Bench of

this Court vide order dated 06.09.2022 and also the fact that the entire case

is based on documentary evidence and no useful purpose would be served

by keeping the petitioner in further incarceration and 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, 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)
                                                       JUDGE
December 20, 2022
Davinder Kumar

                 Whether speaking / reasoned                       Yes/No
                 Whether reportable                                Yes/No
                                    3 of 3