Sandeep Alias Dc vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 17334 P&H

CRM-M-58477-2022                                                     -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                                                 CRM-M-58477-2022
                                                 Date of decision : 20.12.2022

Sandeep @ DC

                                                      ... Petitioner

                                        Versus

State of Haryana

                                                    ... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:     Mr. Lalit Kumar Narang, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Vishal Malik, AAG, Haryana.
                  ***

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the

petitioner in FIR No.32 dated 01.02.2020 registered under Sections 392,

397 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959

(Sections 394, 307, 120-B and 379-B IPC and 27/29 Arms Act have been

added later on) at Police Station Meham, District Rohtak.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner is in custody since 13.08.2020 and there are 33 prosecution

witnesses, out of which, two have been examined and thus, the

conclusion of the trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that the

petitioner has not been named in the FIR and the petitioner has been

implicated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Ashish

1 of 4

which has been recorded in another case and the said Ashish has already

been granted the concession of regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of

this Court vide order dated 24.02.2022 passed in CRM-M-41332-2021. It

is contended that no pistol has been recovered from the present petitioner.

It is further contended that the star witness in the present case is

complainant-Sandeep Kumar who has been examined as PW1 and in his

statement, he had stated that he had seen the accused persons present in

the Court as well as through Video Conferencing, which included the

present petitioner, and had stated that he could not identify them, as the

assailants, who had trespassed into the factory, had covered their faces

and were wearing monkey caps and thus, he was unable to recognise the

assailants.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the

present petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner and has

submitted that the petitioner is involved in several other cases also and as

per the disclosure statement of Ashish, it is the petitioner who had

provided the co-accused with the pistols used in the crime.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal to the said

argument, has submitted that the petitioner is on bail in the abovesaid

cases and 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 and the bail application of the petitioner

cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in

2 of 4

another case. 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 abovesaid facts and circumstances as

well as law laid down in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi's case (Supra)

more so, the facts that in the present case, the petitioner is in custody

since 13.08.2020 and out of 33 prosecution witnesses, two witnesses have

been examined and thus, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take time

and the fact that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and was

implicated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Ashish

which had been recorded in another FIR and the said Ashish has already

been granted the concession of regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of

this Court vide order dated 24.02.2022 passed in CRM-M-41332-2021

and the fact that no recovery of pistol has been effected from the

petitioner and the fact that the complainant while appearing in the witness

box as PW1 had not recognized the accused persons present in the Court,

which included the present petitioner, as the persons, who had trespassed

into the factory had covered their faces with monkey caps, the present

petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular

3 of 4

bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial

Court/Duty Magistrate, 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 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 an 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 application.

                                                          (VIKAS BAHL)
                                                              JUDGE
December 20, 2022
Davinder Kumar



                 Whether speaking/reasoned:-              Yes/No
                 Whether reportable:-                     Yes/No




                                    4 of 4