Ajmer Singh Vashisht vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 6246 P&H

      IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
                     CHANDIGARH

219                                                     CRM-M-27126-2022
                                                Date of Decision: 06.07.2022

AJMER SINGH VASHISHT
                                                                ... Petitioner
                                    Versus

STATE OF HARYANA
                                                              ... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
                              ***
Present: Mr. Nirmal Singh, Advocate
         for the petitioner.

            Mr. Ashish Yadav, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
                                ****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

Instant petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case

FIR No.04, dated 05.01.2010 under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 465, 468 and

471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station

Chandnibagh, District Panipat.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner inter alia

contends that the petitioner was nominated in the aforesaid case that was

registered at the instance of one Harish Kumar. It is contended that the

petitioner faced the trial in the aforesaid case and thereafter was acquitted

by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat on 01.07.2016. It is further

contended that against the aforesaid judgment of acquittal, the respondent-

complainant had preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions. Vide

judgment dated 02.09.2021, the judgment dated 01.07.2016 passed by the

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat was set aside by the Sessions Judge,

Panipat and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court to pass a fresh

1 of 3

judgment/order by recording its findings on all the charges as levelled

against the petitioner herein. The aforesaid judgment dated 02.09.2021

passed by the Sessions Judge, Panipat in Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2021

was the subject matter of challenge in Criminal Revision 1052 of 2021

before this Court. Vide judgment dated 29.11.2021 passed in the above

mentioned Criminal Revision No.1052 of 2021, the judgment of the

Sessions Judge, Panipat was set aside and direction was issued to the

Sessions Judge, Panipat to decide the case itself on the basis of evidence

already brought on record and to pass fresh judgment in accordance with

law. The Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2021 was accordingly revived and the

Sessions Judge, Panipat was directed to decide the same in a time bound

manner preferably within a period of six months.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that

warrants were issued to secure the presence of the appellant, however, he

was not aware of the same and upon being apprised about the same, he

surrendered before the Court of Sessions on 02.06.2022 and he is in custody

since then.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, could not controvert

the above mentioned factual position, however, he opposed the grant of bail

to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner voluntarily remained

absent from the Court for a long time.

It is evident that the petitioner was earlier released on bail after

registration of the case and thereafter, he was acquitted after facing trial.

There is no allegation that the petitioner has ever misused the concession of

bail granted earlier to him. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the

2 of 3

petitioner may abscond from process of law.

Taking into consideration the facts noticed above, the fact that

the petitioner was earlier acquitted by the trial Court as also the fact that he

has never misused the concession of bail granted earlier to him and also

keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 02.06.2022, I

deem it appropriate to allow the present petition.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner

is admitted to regular bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the

satisfaction of trial Court/lower Appellate Court/Duty Magistrate,

concerned.

The observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as

an expression on the merits of the case and the lower Appellate Court shall

decide the case/appeal on the basis of its own merits.

Petition stands allowed accordingly.

                                               (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
                                                     JUDGE
06.07.2022
rajender

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




                                   3 of 3