Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Malik vs State Of Haryana on 7 July, 2022
CRM-M-27669-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CRM-M-27669-2022
Date of decision : 07.07.2022
Anil Malik
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Satnam Singh Sishodia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Praveen Bhadu, AAG, Haryana.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 746 dated
05.11.2020 registered under Sections 120-B, 272, 328, 420, 467 and 471 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 72-A of Excise Act at Police
Station City Sonipat, District Sonipat.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the
present case, on the basis of secret information, one person was
apprehended at the spot, i.e. Sachin, from whom illegal liquor was seized
whereas other co-accused namely, Amit Khatri, was able to flee from the
spot. It has been submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR nor
any recovery has been effected from him. It has also been submitted that the
petitioner has been implicated on the basis of disclosure statement of Sachin
and even after the recording of the said disclosure statement, no recovery
1 of 4
has been effected from the present petitioner. It has further been submitted
that Amit Khatri, who was also present in the car although, he managed to
run away, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by a
coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.11.2021 (Annexure P-6).
It has been stated that the petitioner has been in custody since 14.12.2021
and there are 22 prosecution witnesses, out of which only one witness has
been examined, thus, the trial is likely to take time.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the
present petition for regular bail and has submitted that the petitioner is
involved in several other cases. It has also been submitted that as per the
disclosure statement of Sachin, illegal / spurious liquor was being obtained
from the present petitioner to be sold further. The other facts have, however,
not been disputed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, 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 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
2 of 4
has perused the paper book.
A perusal of the FIR would show that the petitioner has not
been named in the FIR and no recovery has been effected from the
petitioner. The car in which illegal / spurious liquor was being taken was
apprehended and in the said car, the co-accused person, i.e. Sachin was
apprehended and the other co-accused, i.e. Amit son of Krishana, managed
to flee from the spot. The petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor was
apprehended at the spot. The co-accused of the petitioner namely Amit
Khatri, who managed to run away from the spot, has been granted the
concession of regular bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order
dated 18.11.2021 passed in CRM-M-29423-2021. The petitioner is sought
to be implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement of Sachin and
even after recording of said disclosure statement of Sachin, no recovery has
been effected from the petitioner. The petitioner has been in custody since
14.12.2021 and there are 22 prosecution witnesses, out of which only one
witness has been examined, thus, the trial is likely to take time. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that co-accused of the petitioner
namely Sahil Rathi has been granted the concession of regular bail vide
order dated 02.06.2022 passed in CRM-M-23585-2022 and the case of the
present petitioner is on a similar footing as that of said Sahil Rathi.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances and
also in view of the law laid down in Maulana'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.
3 of 4
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.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
July 07, 2022
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
