Rahul @ Sallu vs State Of Haryana
2023 Latest Caselaw 1897 P&H

CRM-M-3678 of 2023                                                   -1-

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANIDGARH
215
                                                  CRM-M-3678 of 2023
                                                  Date of Decision: 30.01.2023


Rahul @ Sallu                                                 ..... Petitioner

                                         Versus

State of Haryana                                              ..... Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL


Present:     Mr. Vijay Sangwan, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, AAG, Haryana.

                                         *****

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.408 dated 18.12.2021, under

Sections 285, 323, 395, 506 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959

(Sections 397 and 120-B IPC added later on), registered at Police Station

Sadar Narnaul, District Mahendergarh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner is in custody since 05.04.2022 and there are 22 witnesses, out of

which, none have been examined. It is further submitted that the petitioner

had earlier filed a regular bail petition which was dismissed as withdrawn at

that stage on 22.07.2022 and even thereafter, no witness has been examined

and the trial has not made any progress. It is stated that the investigation in

the present case is complete and no purpose would be served by keeping the

petitioner in further incarceration. It is further stated that no recovery has

1 of 3

been effected from the present petitioner and co-accused Dharampal @

Baka has been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court in CRM-

M-44255-2022, vide order dated 16.01.2023.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the

present petition for regular bail and has submitted that in the present case,

Section 201 IPC has been added since the mobile phone was destroyed by

the petitioner and that the petitioner is involved in two other cases. The

other facts, have, however, not been disputed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has relied 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 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."

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has

perused the paper book.

Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances

moreso, the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 05.04.2022 and

there are 22 witnesses and none of them have been examined and thus, the

trial is likely to take time and also the fact that no recovery has been 2 of 3

effected from the present petitioner and the co-accused of the petitioner

Dharampal @ Baka has been granted the concession of regular bail by this

Court in CRM-M-44255-2022, vide order dated 16.01.2023, and the case of

the petitioner is on a similar footing to the said co-accused and also keeping

in view the law laid down in Maulana's case (supra), 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.

However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by the

petitioner to threaten or influence the complainant of 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)
30.01.2023                                              JUDGE
D.Bansal

             Whether speaking/reasoned :       Yes/No
             Whether reportable        :       Yes/No




                                  3 of 3