Monu Alias Mongli vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 5979 P&H

CRM-M-26367-2022                                                         1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                   CHANDIGARH
                      ***

CRM-M-26367-2022 Date of decision : 27.06.2022

Monu alias Mongli

... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present: Mr.Jasdev Singh Thind, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

This is a first application for grant of regular baill to the

petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR no.738 dated 28.10.2021

registered under Section 136 of the Electricity Act at Police Station

Samalkha, District Panipat.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner has been in custody since 22.03.2022 and the investigation is

complete and the challan has already been presented and there are 12

prosecution witnesses and none of them have been examined and 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 on the basis of disclosure

statement of co-accused. It is further submitted that as per the version given

in paragraph 2 of the impugned order vide which the regular bail of the

petitioner has been rejected, the share of money which had come to the

1 of 3

petitioner amounts to Rs.7000/- out of which, the petitioner has already got

recovery of Rs.2700/- effected and is also ready to deposit Rs.5000/- in the

account of the UHBVN, Bihauli, without admitting his liability and without

prejudice to his rights.

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, thus, does not deserve the concession of

regular bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has submitted

that the petitioner has already been granted bail in said cases. He 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 has

perused the paper book.

The petitioner was arrested on 22.03.2022 and investigation in

the present case is complete and there are 12 prosecution witnesses and

2 of 3

none of them have been examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time.

As per the allegations in the FIR, the cable and wires worth Rs.1,25,000/-

are alleged to have been stolen and as per the facts which have been detailed

in paragraph 2 of the impugned order, the share of the petitioner comes to

Rs.7000/- out of which Rs.2700/- has already been recovered. The

petitioner is ready to deposit Rs.5000/- in the account of UHBVN, Bihauli,

within a period of two weeks from today.

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 and subject to the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.5000/- in the

account of UHBVN, Bihauli, within a period of two weeks from today. The

said deposit made by the petitioner would not be construed as an admission

of guilt of the petitioner and the same is being paid without prejudice to his

rights.

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
June 27, 2022
Davinder Kumar

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


                                    3 of 3