Mohit Alias Pahalwan vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 6168 P&H

CRM-M-25851-2021                                                 1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH
205
                                               CRM-M-25851-2021
                                               Decided on : 05.07.2022

Mohit @ Pahalwan
                                                                 . . . Petitioner
                                   Versus
State of Haryana
                                                              . . . Respondent
CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Mr. Ajay Singh Berwal, Advocate for
         Mr. Rakesh Kumar Lathwal, Advocate
         for the petitioner.

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

VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 100

dated 31.03.2018 under Sections 379-B and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (Sections 392, 397 and 411 IPC added later on) and Section

25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Murthal, District

Sonipat.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner has been in custody since 04.06.2018 and there are as many

as 25 prosecution witnesses, out of which 12 witnesses are yet to be

examined, thus, the trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that

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

the present case on the basis of the disclosure statement of Gautam @

1 of 4

Choota and the said Gautam @ Choota has already been granted the

concession of regular bail vide order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat (Annexure P-1). It is contended that

even the second co-accused Sachin @ Shooter has already been granted

the concession of regular bail vide order order 16.10.2019 passed by

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sonipat (Annexure P-2) and a

perusal of the said order would show that it has been observed that the

complainant Jai Pal has been examined and he did not identify the

accused. It is further contended that the recovery of the car and the other

recoveries have already been effected from the petitioner and no

purpose will be served by keeping the present petitioner in further

incarceration and has thus, prayed for the concession of regular bail.

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

present application for regular bail and has submitted that the petitioner

is involved in 6 other cases and is, thus, a habitual offender. It is also

submitted that the pistol used and two live cartridges have been

recovered from the petitioner. The other facts as mentioned by learned

counsel for the petitioner have not been disputed by learned State

counsel.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has rebutted the said

argument and 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

2 of 4

passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir

Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and others reported 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 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 04.06.2018 and

there are as many as 25 prosecution witnesses out of which, only 13

witnesses have been examined. The petitioner has not been named in

the FIR and has been implicated in the present case on the basis of the

disclosure statement of Gaurav @ Choota. The co-accused Gaurav @

Choota has already been granted the concession of regular bail vide

order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Sonepat. Even the other accused namely Sachin @ Shooter has also

been granted the concession of regular bail vide order order 16.10.2019

passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sonipat and in the said

order, it had been observed that the complainant Jai Pal has been

examined and he did not identify the accused. The recoveries have

already been effected from the present petitioner.

3 of 4

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.

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