R.K. Nahar vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 6144 P&H

CRM-M No.27307 of 2022(O&M)                                                 -1-

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

Sr. No. 279
                                          CRM-M No.27307 of 2022(O&M)
                                          Date of Decision: 05.07.2022

R.K. Nahar
                                                       .......Petitioner
                     Vs.

State of Punjab
                                                       ........Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:-     Mr. A.S. Gill, Advocate,
              for the petitioner.

              Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, AAG, Punjab.

                     *****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

The instant petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of

regular bail in FIR No.73 dated 28.04.2022, registered under Sections

307, 364, 341, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Bhargo Camp, District

Police Commissionrate, Jalandhar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and on 27.04.2022,

the petitioner was not even present at the place of occurrence much less in

Jalandhar, within which district the incident had taken place and had, in

fact, checked in at JPS Grand Hotel, B-2, 310, Tara Nagar, Old Palam Road,

Kakroula Dwarka, Sector 15, Delhi, at 4.25 PM and checked out from the

hotel on 28.04.2022, at 11.00 AM and in order to substantiate the same, has

referred to a tax invoice dated 28.04.2022 (Annexure P-7). It is further

submitted that the said factum is also prima facie apparent from the

1 of 4

signatures of the petitioner on the register dated 27.04.2022 maintained by

the JPS Grand Hotel, Delhi and the same has been annexed as Annexure P-8

at page 34 of the paper book. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued

that the call details of the petitioner as well as the CCTV Footage of the said

hotel for the date 27.04.2022 and 28.04.2022 would also show that on the

date and time of the alleged incident i.e. 27.04.2022 at 10.15 PM, the

petitioner was present in Delhi and not in Jalandhar. It is submitted that the

petitioner has also filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, in which the

Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.05.2022 had put a query

to the State Counsel with respect to the arguments raised by the present

petitioner regarding his false implication. It is submitted that as per the FIR,

no specific injury has been inflicted by the present petitioner and even the

car, which was allegedly used by the accused persons does not belong to the

present petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in

custody since 06.05.2022 and since the challan has not been presented yet,

thus, the trial is likely to take time and thus, has prayed for the concession

of regular bail.

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

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

the petitioner along with other accused had inflicted 10 injuries upon the

injured Vishal (complainant's brother). It is submitted that the petitioner is

involved in four other cases and the defence sought to be raised by the

petitioner can only be considered during the course of trial and has, thus,

prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has submitted

that the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail in one case and interim

2 of 4

anticipatory bail in the other case and regular bail in the remaining cases

and has relied upon a judgment of the 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.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely

implicated in the present case inasmuch as on 27.04.2022 at 10.15 PM,

when the alleged incident had taken place, he was not present in Jalandhar,

whereas he had checked into JPS Grand Hotel, Sector 15, Kakroula Dwarka,

Delhi at 04.25 PM and for the same purpose, has produced on record the

documents which include the tax invoice of the said hotel (P-7), Register

maintained by the said hotel (P-8), call details (P-9) and CCTV Footage (P-

10) from the said hotel. The fact whether the petitioner was at the alleged

place of occurrence or was present in Delhi, would be finally adjudicated

3 of 4

during the course of trial and this Court does not wish to express any final

opinion so as to prejudice the case of either of the parties. The petitioner

has been in custody since 06.05.2022 and an arguable defence has been

raised and since the challan has not been presented yet, thus, the conclusion

of the trial is likely to take time.

Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances and

also in view of the law laid down in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi'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.

All the pending applications also stand disposed of, in view of

the aforesaid order.

05.07.2022                                              (VIKAS BAHL)
monika                                                      JUDGE
                     Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
                     Whether reportable        Yes/No




                                  4 of 4