Sachin Alias Sachhu vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 10652 P&H

CRM-M-12095-2022                                                        1

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

CRM-M-12095-2022 Date of decision : 07.09.2022

Sachin alias Sachhu

... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Haryana

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present: Mr.Mandeep Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Munish Sharma, 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.188 dated 08.09.2021 registered under

Sections 379-A, 34, 201 IPC at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna

Nagar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner has been in custody since 19.10.2021 and there are 11 witnesses

out of which, only one witness has been examined and thus, the trial is

likely to take time. It is further submitted that the complainant in the present

case has already been examined and the recovery has already been effected.

It is also submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and was

arrested on the basis of secret information in another case and thereafter, the

petitioner was implicated in the present case during the investigation in the

said other FIR.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the 1 of 3

present petition for regular bail and has submitted that the petitioner is

inovlved in several other cases and is, thus, a habitual offender.

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 19.10.2021 and there

are 11 witnesses, out of which only one witness has been examined, thus,

the trial is likely to take time. The complainant has already been examined

in the present case and the recovery has already been effected.

Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances and in

view of the law laid down in the 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.

2 of 3

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

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.

                                                    (VIKAS BAHL)
                                                       JUDGE
September 07, 2022
Davinder Kumar

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




                                    3 of 3