Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sonveer Rathore @ Sonu vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 July, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083833
CRM-M-28389-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:083833
- 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
221
CRM-M-28389-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 04.07.2023
Sonveer Rathore @ Sonu
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana And Another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Govind Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG Haryana
Mr. Vishal Pundir, Advocate for respondent No.2
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.46 dated 19.10.2021,
registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 66C, 66D of
I.T. Act, at Police Station Cyber Crime, Karnal.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for more
than 1 year. His name surfaced based on disclosure statement of co-accused
Aman, who was the beneficiary of the amount as the same was transferred in his
account and the same is inadmissible as per the judgment passed by Hon'ble The
Supreme Court of India in the case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 1. There is a compromise that has been effected between the
parties on 11.10.2022, Annexure P-2. Only 4 out of 14 prosecution witnesses have
been examined. Co-accused Pankaj and Abdula alias Raja Bhaiya have been
granted regular bail after being in custody for almost 9 months vide Annexures P-
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083833
CRM-M-28389-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:083833
- 2-
5 and P-6. The petitioner is involved in 5 more cases, in which he is on bail. In
this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble The Supreme Court in
Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.
3. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the
petitioner is a habitual offender. He is however unable to controvert the
submissions with regard to custody, stage of the case, co-accused have been
granted bail and the petitioner is on bail in the other cases registered against him.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 affirms the
factum of compromise effected between them.
5. Heard.
6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi (Supra) had held that, "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." Reiterating in Prabhakar Tewari vs.
State of UP and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, it was observed that, "The offence
alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending
against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of
prayer for bail."
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that
the petitioner is in custody for more than 1 year; disclosure statement in the basis
of involvement of the petitioner; is on bail in the other cases registered against
him; co-accused having already been granted bail; the matter stands compromised
between the parties; out of 14 prosecution witnesses, only 4 have yet been
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083833
CRM-M-28389-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:083833
- 3-
examined, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, his further incarceration
would not serve any useful purpose, thus the present petition for grant of regular
bail deserves to be allowed.
8. As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered
to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to his not being
required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:-
1. The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.
3. The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every
date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.
4. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of
which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected
of.
5. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce,
threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.
6. The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.
7. The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to the
Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion
of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change
any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation
to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.
8. The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission
of the trial Court.
9. The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition,
as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.
9. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the
aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as
granted to the petitioner by this order.
10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein
are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083833
CRM-M-28389-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:083833
- 4-
an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of
the aforesaid observations.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
July 04, 2023
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083833
4 of 4
