Punjab-Haryana High Court
Masoom Ali vs State Of Haryana on 21 April, 2023
CRM-M-6953-2023 -1- 2023:PHHC:056271
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
226
CRM-M-6953-2023
Date of Decision: 21.04.2023
Masoom Ali
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA
Present: - Mr. Jagmohan Ghumman, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Bansal, AAG, Haryana.
ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J. (ORAL)
Custody certificate dated 20.04.2023 filed by learned
counsel for the State is taken on record.
The petitioner has filed the instant second petition under
Section 439 Cr.P.C., for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 122 dated
24.05.2022, registered under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC
(Sections 397, 365 and 411 IPC and Section (1-B) (a) of the Arms Act
were added and Section 341 IPC was deleted, later on) at Police Station
Section 17/18, Gurugram, District Gurugram.
Briefly, the aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaint of
Sharad Kumar S/o Ram Avtar, alleging therein that he is employed as a
driver in a transport company situated at village Daultabad, Gurugram.
On 23.05.2022 at around 9:00 P.M., he loaded shuttering rods in his Tata
Canter bearing registration No. HR-55-AL-2575, from the store of Amit
Builder situated in Sector 69, Gurugram and left for Sector 150, Noida
(Uttar Pradesh). Around 10:30 P.M., when he reached at Iffco Chowk
RISHU KATARIA
2023.04.21 17:51
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-6953-2023 -2- 2023:PHHC:056271
flyover, a scorpio vehicle of black colour came from behind and stopped
in front of his vehicle forcing him to stop. Thereafter, 3-4 boys alighted
from the scorpio and one of them opened the door of his canter and took
out of key of his vehicle. Then other two boys dragged the complainant
out of his canter and forced him to sit on the rear seat of their scorpio in
between them. One of the accused took over the charge of his canter.
Thereafter, they kept on roaming but could not identify the places. The
accused were talking that they will sell the material at SS Trading
Company at village Noorpur owned by the petitioner. Accused took out
the SIM of his cell phone and threw it. At around 5:00/5:30 A.M, the
accused left the complainant near the temple in the hill area and escaped.
He came to Sohna Road on foot. Thereafter, he took the cell phone from
the security guard and rang up to his owner and narrated the incident to
him. His owner also came there after some time. Request for initiating
legal action against the accused was made.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia contends that
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case. He is a scrap
dealer. The only allegation against the petitioner was that the accused
were talking that they would sell the stolen property to the petitioner.
The complainant appeared in the witness box as PW-3 and was declared
hostile as he was not supporting the prosecution case. Even he failed to
identify the accused persons who were present in Court. Copy of
statement of the complainant dated 16.02.2022 recorded by the trial
Court, is annexed as Annexure P-3. Co-accused of the petitioner,
namely; Azharuddin, Arjun Kumar, Monu and Deepak @ Gaurav, have
already been enlarged on bail by the learned trial Court vide orders dated
RISHU KATARIA
2023.04.21 17:51
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-6953-2023 -3- 2023:PHHC:056271
02.01.2023 and 22.12.2022 (Annexures P-4 to P-6). Petitioner is in
custody since 25.05.2022. He is not involved in any other case. Trial is
likely to take long time. No useful purpose will be served by further
detention of the petitioner in custody. Thus, it is prayed that he may be
released on regular bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently
opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
However, learned counsel for the State fairly conceded the fact that
petitioner is not involved in any other case.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,
custody period of the petitioner and also the fact that he is not involved
in any other case, but without commenting on merits of the case, I am of
the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular
bail.
Therefore, the petition is allowed and petitioner, namely;
Masoom Ali, is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing of
bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial
Magistrate concerned.
21.04.2023 (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA)
rishu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
RISHU KATARIA
2023.04.21 17:51
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
