Pankaj vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 10902 P&H

211                          CRM-M-40246-2022                                      -1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                              AT CHANDIGARH

                                       CRM-M-40246-2022
                                       Date of Decision: 09.09.2022

Pankaj                                                          ......Petitioner

                                 Vs.
State of Haryana                                        .........Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
        Mr. Praveen Bhadu, A.A.G., Haryana.
              *****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)

1. This is the second petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant

of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 31, dated 21.01.2022, under

Sections 406/409/420/467/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,

registered at Police Station City, District Kaithal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

present petition is in effect the first petition inasmuch as the first petition

was withdrawn on 26.08.2022 with liberty to file a fresh petition after

giving correct and complete particulars and the present petition has been

filed after complying with the said order.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since

10.03.2022, and the investigation is complete and the 'challan' has been

presented and there are 13 witnesses, none of whom have been examined

and thus, the trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that the

present case is triable by a Magistrate and the same is based on

documentary evidence and thus, no purpose would be served for keeping

the petitioner in further incarceration. It is further submitted that as per the

1 of 3

211 CRM-M-40246-2022 -2

prosecution case, the person who had forged the documents was one

Resham Singh.

3. Learned State counsel on the other hand has opposed the

present petition for regular bail and has submitted that on the basis of the

forged documents, the petitioner has got a loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- and that

there are other cases against the petitioner and the petitioner is a habitual

offender.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal has submitted

that as per settled law, it is the facts of the present case which are required

to be considered for the purpose of deciding the present bail application.

For the said proposition, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd.

Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and others reported as 2012 (2) SCC

382 and reference has been made to the relevant portion of paragraph 6

which 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."

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has

perused the paper book.

6. The petitioner is in custody since 10.03.2022 and the

investigation is complete and the challan has been presented and there are

13 witnesses, none of whom have been examined. The case is based on

2 of 3

211 CRM-M-40246-2022 -3

documentary evidence and thus, no purpose would be served by keeping

the petitioner in further incarceration.

7. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances and

also the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, 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 also subject to the petitioner giving an undertaking to the trial

Court that he would appear before the trial Court on each and every date

unless his appearance is personally exempted by the Court.

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.

September 09, 2022                                   (VIKAS BAHL)
nitin                                                  JUDGE

             Whether speaking/reasoned                       Yes/No
             Whether Reportable                              Yes/No




                                     3 of 3