Manohar Lal vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 5984 P&H

CRM-M-27221-2022                                                    -1-


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH

(204)
                                 CRM-M-27221-2022
                                 Date of decision: - 28.06.2022

Manohar Lal
                                                                  ....Petitioner

                                   Versus

State of Haryana
                                                                .....Respondent


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL


Present:-     Mr. Kulwant Singh Dhanora, Advocate,
              for the petitioner.

              Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, DAG, Haryana.

                   ****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

This is a first petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of

regular bail in FIR No.262 dated 14.05.2022, registered under Section 61

of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Haryana Amendment Bill, 2020), at

Police Station Civil Lines Hisar, District Hisar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner is in custody since 14.05.2022 and the recovery has already

been effected from the petitioner and no further recovery is to be effected

from him. It is further submitted that the presentation of the challan and

the trial is likely to take time and the present case is triable by the

magistrate. It is also submitted that in order to show his bona fide and

without admitting his liability, the petitioner is ready to deposit an amount

1 of 3

of Rs.10,000/- with the Haryana Excise Department within a period of

two weeks from today.

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 and is a habitual offender and thus, does

not deserve the concession of regular bail.

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 has

perused the paper book.

Petitioner has been in custody since 14.05.2022. The

recovery has already been effected from the petitioner and no further

recovery is to be made from him and the presentation of the challan and

the trial is likely to take time. Further, the petitioner is ready to deposit an

2 of 3

amount of Rs.10,000/- with the Haryana Excise Department to show his

bona fide.

Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances and

also in view of the law laid down in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi'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 depositing an amount of Rs.10,000/- with the Haryana Excise

Department within a period of two weeks from today and also subject to

him not being required in any other case.

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not

deposit the above-said amount within a period of two weeks from today,

the present petition would be deemed to have been dismissed. The said

deposit however would not be construed as an admission of guilt by the

petitioner.

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 )
June 28, 2022                                       JUDGE
naresh.k

              Whether reasoned/speaking?              Yes
              Whether reportable?                     Yes




                                     3 of 3