Deenu vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 7087 P&H

CRM-M-12369-2022                                                         1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH
223
                                               CRM-M-12369-2022
                                               Decided on : 18.07.2022

Deenu
                                                                 . . . Petitioner
                                   Versus
State of Haryana
                                                              . . . Respondent
CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Mr. Deepender Singh, 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. 529 dated

29.12.2001 under Sections 459, 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act (Sections 392, 394 and 397 IPC

added later on) registered at Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh, District

Faridabad.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the

present case, one of the co-accused Bubudeen, who was also declared as

proclaimed offender, had been arrested and vide judgment dated

18.10.2019 (Annexure P-4) has been acquitted as in the said case, the

complainant has turned hostile and has stated that the police had

obtained his signatures on blank paper and refuted the suggestion that

Bablu and Rati Ram were present with him in the office. It is further

submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 31.12.2001 upto

1 of 4

06.03.2002 and thereafter, from 26.02.2021 to even date and there are

as many as 24 prosecution witnesses, out of whom, only 4 witnesses

have been examined leaving, 20 witnesses to be examined and thus, the

trial is likely to take time.

Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the present

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

the petitioner was arrested on 31.12.2001 and thereafter, was granted

bail on 06.03.2002, but however, since the petitioner did not appear

before the trial court and evaded the process of law, thus, the petitioner

was ultimately declared as proclaimed offender on 07.08.2007 and it is

only after a period of more than 13 years and 6 months, the petitioner

was arrested on 26.02.2021 and thus, there is every chance that the

petitioner would again abscond and delay the trial. It is further

submitted that in the FIR, it was specifically mentioned that there were

4 persons and one of the named accused was Deenu i.e., the present

petitioner. It is contended that in the present case, after the petitioner

was arrested on 31.12.2001, an identity parade was conducted and the

said fact is clear from the perusal of the challan (Annexure P-2). It is

further contended that as far as the acquittal of the co-accused is

concerned, it is apparent from paragraph 11 of order dated 18.10.2019

(passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad) that accused present

in the Court was not amongst the robbers and thus, the said evidence

would not in any way benefit the present petitioner. It is argued that the

petitioner has been convicted vide judgment dated 19.03.2021 in FIR

2 of 4

No. 59 dated 25.02.2021 under Section 174-A IPC registered at Police

Station Sadar Ballabgarh, Faridabad.

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has

perused the paperbook.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was arrested on

31.12.2001 and was granted bail on 06.03.2002 and thereafter, stopped

appearing before the trial Court and was ultimately declared as proclaimed

offender on 07.08.2007. It is after a period of more than 13 years and 6

months that the petitioner was arrested on 26.02.2021 and thus, has

delayed the entire trial. There is every likelihood that the petitioner would

again abscond in case he is granted bail, moreso at this stage when 20

more witnesses are yet to be examined. The petitioner has also been

convicted vide judgment dated 19.03.2021 in FIR No. 59 dated

25.02.2021 under Section 174-A IPC registered at Police Station Sadar

Ballabgarh, Faridabad. . As per the prosecution version, four persons had

entered into the room where the complainant was working as a Munshi on

the crusher of Dr. Ahuja at plot no. 109 and was sitting and counting cash,

when the said 4 accused persons including the petitioner had snatched

money from the said Munshi. The name of the petitioner is specifically

mentioned in the FIR. Reliance placed upon by the petitioner upon the

judgment dated 18.10.2019 with respect to the acquittal of Babudeen, co-

accused, does not further the case of the petitioner inasmuch as, the

complainant had specifically stated that the said Babudeen was not

amongst the robbers. No statement had been made/shown of the

3 of 4

complainant deposing/giving any evidence in favour of the present

petitioner. Recovery of Rs.500/- of the looted amount had also been

effected from the present petitioner.

Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the

present petition is dismissed at this stage.

Since the present FIR is of year 2001 and out of 24

prosecution witnesses, only 4 witnesses have been examined and 20

witnesses are yet to be examined, the trial Court is requested to expedite

the trial.

                                                      (VIKAS BAHL)
                                                         JUDGE
July 18th, 2022
Mehak
                       Whether reasoned/speaking?         Yes/No
                       Whether reportable?                Yes/No




                                             4 of 4