Yaduvender Singh vs State Of Haryana
2023 Latest Caselaw 1333 P&H

                            215
                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                   CHANDIGARH

                                                                         CRM-M-44131-2022
                                                                         Reserved on : 16.01.2023
                                                                         Date of decision : 20.01.2023


                            Yaduvender Singh                                                .....Petitioner

                                                            Vs.

                            State of Haryana                                              .....Respondent



                            CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN



                            Present :   Mr. D.S. Matya, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                        Ms. Vibha Tiwari, AAG, Haryana.



                            ALKA SARIN, J.

This is the second petition under Section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR

No.606 dated 24.11.2019 under Sections 302, 392, 201, 120-B, 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered at Police Station Pataudi,

District Gurugram. The first petition [CRM-M-39598-2020] was

dismissed as withdrawn on 22.01.2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the

petitioner has been in custody for a period of almost 3 years and 2 months.

It is further the contention that the entire case is based on circumstantial

evidence. It is the case set up by the Prosecution that the petitioner herein

along with co-accused - Vikas and Kapil - hired the taxi of the deceased YOGESH SHARMA 2023.01.20 13:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh and took him to Pataudi. Thereafter, in pursuance of the conspiracy to rob

the deceased Yusuf of his car, they beat him and the petitioner caught the

hands of the deceased Yusuf, the co-accused Vikas caught the legs and the

co-accused Kapil strangulated the deceased Yusuf. Learned counsel for the

petitioner would contend that the similarly situated co-accused Vikas, who

is stated to have caught the legs of the deceased, was granted bail by this

Court vide order dated 06.09.2022 passed in CRM-M-34164-2022 and the

similarly situated co-accused Kapil, who is alleged to have strangulated

the deceased, was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2022

passed in CRM-M-44175-2022. It is further the contention that there is no

other case pending against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

petitioner would further contend that the petitioner has clean antecedents

and that out of 31 witnesses, only 14 have been examined. It is further the

contention that the complainant has not named the petitioner in his

statement which has since been recorded.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State is not in a position to

deny that the petitioner has been in custody for a period of 3 years and 2

months. She is also not in a position to deny that the similarly situated

co-accused - Vikas and Kapil - were granted bail by this Court vide order

dated 06.09.2022 passed in CRM-M-34164-2022 and order dated

15.11.2022 passed in CRM-M-44175-2022, respectively. She is also not in

a position to deny that out of 31 witnesses, only 14 have been examined

and that there is no other case pending against the petitioner.

Heard.

In the present case, the petitioner has been in custody now for

a period of 3 years and 2 months. There is no other case pending against YOGESH SHARMA 2023.01.20 13:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh the petitioner. The similarly situated co-accused - Vikas and Kapil - have

been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2022 passed in

CRM-M-34164-2022 and order dated 15.11.2022 passed in CRM-M-

44175-2022, respectively. The complainant and the other material

witnesses have since been examined. The complainant is stated not to have

named the petitioner in his statement. Out of 31 witnesses, only 14 have

been examined. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances especially in

view of the period of incarceration and the fact that the trial is likely to

take some time to conclude and without commenting on the merits of the

case, I deem it appropriate to extend the benefit of regular bail to the

petitioner. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his

furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa

Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/Trial Court concerned.

However, the Prosecution will always be at liberty to apply

for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found to be misusing the

concession of bail in any manner.

It is also made clear that any observation made herein shall

not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Disposed off, accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also

stand disposed off.

                            20.01.2023                                              (ALKA SARIN)
                            Yogesh Sharma                                              JUDGE

                            NOTE:           Whether speaking/non-speaking: Yes/No
                                            Whether reportable: Yes/No




YOGESH SHARMA
2023.01.20 13:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh