Gagan vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 6167 P&H

CRM-M-7374-2022                                               1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH
209
                                               CRM-M-7374-2022
                                               Decided on : 05.07.2022

Gagan
                                                                  . . . Petitioner
                                   Versus
State of Haryana
                                                              . . . Respondent
CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Ms. Garima Sharma, Advocate
         for the petitioner.

             Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
                                ****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)

This is a second petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 409 dated

08.11.2020 under Sections 392 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

registered at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner has been in custody since 27.11.2020 and the investigation in

the present case has been completed and the challan has already been

presented and there are as many as 11 prosecution witnesses, none of

whom have been examined, thus, the trial is likely to take time. It is

further submitted that the recovery in the present case has already been

effected and as per the challan, out of the alleged snatched amount of

Rs. 50,000, Rs.6,000/- has been recovered from the petitioner. It is

1 of 4

contended that a perusal of the FIR would show that it has been stated by

the complainant that he himself sat in the car in which the petitioner and

the other co-accused were already there and thus, the ingredients of

kidnapping are not made out in the present case.

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

present application for regular bail and has submitted that the petitioner

is involved in 3 other cases and in one of the cases i.e. FIR No. 757 of

the year 2015, the petitioner has already been convicted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal to the said

argument, has submitted that in FIR No. 947 dated 14.10.2015, the

petitioner has been acquitted vide judgment dated 31.03.2016 and even

in the FIR No. 757, in which the petitioner has been convicted, the

petitioner has been granted the concession of suspension of sentence in

the appeal filed by the present petitioner. In support of his contention,

learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as per settled

law, it is the facts of the present case which are required to be considered

for the purpose of deciding the present bail application. For the said

proposition, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment

dated 16.01.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal

Appeal No.159 of 2012 titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs.

State of U.P. and others 2012 (2) SCC 382 reference has been made to

the relevant portion of paragraph 6 which 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

2 of 4

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 paperbook.

The petitioner has been in custody since 27.11.2020 and

the challan in the present case has already been presented and there are

as many as 11 prosecution witnesses, none of whom have been

examined. The earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as

withdrawn at that stage on 10.09.2021 and even after the passing of the

said order, a period of more than 9 and a half months has elapsed and

yet, the trial has not made any progress as no person has been examined

till date and thus, it entitles the petitioner to file the second regular bail

application. The recovery has already been effected from the present

petitioner and as per the FIR, it is the complainant who sat in the car in

which the petitioner and the other co-accused were stated to be already

sitting inside.

Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances and

also in view of the law laid down in Maulana's (supra) case, 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.

3 of 4

However, 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

application.

It is made clear, in case, the petitioner threatens or

influences any witness, it would be open to the State to move an

application for cancellation of the present regular bail granted to the

petitioner.

                                                      (VIKAS BAHL)
                                                         JUDGE
July 5th, 2022
Mehak
                       Whether reasoned/speaking?         Yes/No
                       Whether reportable?                Yes/No




                                             4 of 4