Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay vs State Of Punjab on 11 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049094
CRM-M-21294-2022 (O&M) -1- 2023:PHHC:049094
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(209)
CRM-M-21294-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: - 11.04.2023
Ajay
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:- Ms. Kamlesh, Advocate
for Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
This is the second petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.96 dated 16.03.2021,
registered under Sections 379-B, 201 and 413 IPC, at Police Station City
Kharar, Mohali District SAS Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been in custody since 07.05.2021 and the earlier bail
application of the petitioner was withdrawn on 24.02.2022 on account of
the fact that neither the complainant-Chetan Sharma nor the alleged eye
witness Mithun had been examined and liberty was sought to file a fresh
petition after the examination of the said witnesses. It is further submitted
that the said two witnesses have now been examined on 10.02.2023 and
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049094
CRM-M-21294-2022 (O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:049094
04.02.2023 respectively. It is further submitted that inadvertently when
the petition was filed, it was stated to be the first petition and thus, an
application bearing CRM-25416-2022 was moved for amendment of the
bail application and now in the said amended petition, it has been
specifically stated that the present petition is the second petition for
regular bail and even order dated 24.02.2022 passed by this Court in the
earlier petition has been annexed as Annexure P-4. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has prayed that the application for amendment of the bail
application be allowed and the pleas raised in the said amended bail
application be considered for the purpose of adjudicating the present case.
It is stated that in the present case, the petitioner was not named in the
FIR and no recovery has been effected from him and the prayer for bail
has been made on the basis of the above-said facts and also on the basis
of length of custody period undergone by the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned State counsel, on instructions from
ASI Pavitter Pal Singh, has opposed the present petition for regular bail
and has submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved
in several other cases. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not on
bail in some of the other cases. It is also submitted that the trial is at its
fag end as only two witnesses remain to be examined. It is stated that
although, the petitioner was not named in the FIR, but during the course
of investigation, in another FIR i.e., FIR No.98 dated 18.03.2021, the
petitioner suffered a disclosure statement regarding his involvement in the
present case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has relied
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049094
CRM-M-21294-2022 (O&M) -3- 2023:PHHC:049094
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."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since in
pursuance of the said disclosure statement, no recovery has been made
from the present petitioner, thus, the question as to whether the said
disclosure statement which is made in police custody can be used against
the petitioner or not, would be a moot point, which would be decided
during the course of trial.
This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
gone through the paper-book.
In view of the request made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, the application bearing CRM-25416-2022 for amendment of
the bail application is allowed and the amended bail application/petition
is taken on record.
Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances,
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049094
CRM-M-21294-2022 (O&M) -4- 2023:PHHC:049094
more so, the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 07.05.2021
and also the fact that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and no
recovery has been effected from him in the present case 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 directed to be released
on regular 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 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 )
April 11, 2023 JUDGE
naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049094
4 of 4
