Rahul @ Voda vs State Of Ut Chandigarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 10667 P&H

  HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
                           ****
215              CRM-M-39770-2022
                 Date of Decision: 07.09.2022
                           ****
Rahul @ Voda                                  ... Petitioner

                                        VS.

State of UT Chandigarh                                    ... Respondent
                             ****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
                             ****
Present: Mr. SK Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner

          Mr. Kuldeep Tewari, Addl. PP, UT Chandigarh
                               ****
Sandeep Moudgil, J. (Oral)

(1) The petitioner has filed petition under Section 439 CrPC seeking

regular bail in case FIR No.407 dated 19.11.2018 under Sections 392/34 IPC

(later on charge-sheeted under Sections 394/34/411 IPC) registered at Police

Station Sector 36, Chandigarh (annexure P1).

(2)         Notice of motion.

(3)         On the asking of the Court, Mr. Kuldeep Tewari, Advocate

accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

(4) The petitioner claims parity with other co-accused namely,

Ricky @ Chotu who stands acquitted vide judgment dated 24.05.2022. It is

not in dispute that the petitioner was declared PO and is evading the process

of law and the trial remained stalled but under compelling circumstances,

proceeded against the other co-accused who got the benefit of acquittal

merely on the ground that the complainant could not identify the said

accused.

(5) On the other hand, State counsel submits that the petitioner is not

at par with the other co-accused who has been acquitted and as he was

1 of 2

declared PO and has also been involved in various other FIRs as reflected

from the custody certificate dated 07.09.2022 as produced in Court today,

which is taken on record. A perusal of the said custody certificate further

reveals that the petitioner has undergone only 3 months 15 days in judicial

custody so far.

(6) No ground for grant of concession of regular bail is made out.

(7)             Dismissed.



07.09.2022                                          (Sandeep Moudgil)
V.Vishal
                                                          Judge

1. Whether speaking/reasoned?                     Yes/No
2. Whether reportable?                            Yes/No




                                  2 of 2