Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parveen @ P.K vs State Of Haryana on 17 November, 2022
CRM-M-52042-2022(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CRM-M-52042-2022(O&M)
Date of decision : 17.11.2022
Parveen @ P.K.
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Sunil Kr. Pandey, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurbir S. Dhillon, AAG, Haryana.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular
bail to the petitioner in FIR no.122 dated 07.03.2022 registered under
Sections 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Hodal, District Palwal,
Haryana.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been in custody since 07.03.2022 and the investigation is
complete and the challan has already been presented and out of 7 witnesses,
4 have been examined. It is submitted that in the present case, neither any
injury has been caused to any person nor any overt act has been attributed to
the present petitioner.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the
present petition for regular bail and has submitted that the petitioner was
apprehended with 2 country made pistols and 3 live cartridges and is also
involved in three other cases.
1 of 3
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.
The petitioner has been in custody since 07.03.2022 and the
investigation is complete and the challan has already been presented and in
the present case, neither any injury has been caused to any person nor any
overt act has been attributed to the present petitioner.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, 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.
However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by the
petitioner to threaten or influence the complainant or any of the witnesses,
then it would be open to the State to move an application for cancellation of
2 of 3
bail granted to 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.
Pending miscellaneous application stands disposed of in view
of the abovesaid order.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
November 17, 2022
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
