Punjab-Haryana High Court
Noman vs State Of Haryana on 5 July, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084297
CRM-M-28952-2023 2023:PHHC:084297 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
237 CRM-M-28952-2023
Date of decision : 05.07.2023
Noman
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr.Sandeep Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.Dhruv Sihag, AAG, Haryana
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. 146 dated
21.04.2019, registered under Sections 379-B and 34 of IPC and Section 25,
54, 59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Dharuhera, District Rewari.
2. Learned counsel contends that petitioner has been in custody
for the last about 3 years, 5 months, having been arrested on 10.02.2020.
His name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of co-accused Baldev,
who has been granted bail. Charges have been framed on 30.09.2021,
however, out of 30 prosecution witnesses, only 3 have been examined
including the complainant, who is not supporting the case. Co-accused,
namely, Satnam Singh, Harun @ Chaudu, Shakir and Shankar have also
been granted bail. The petitioner is involved in other cases, in few of which,
he is on bail. He relies on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme
Court titled as Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. and another 2020(1)
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084297
RCR (Criminal) 831.
3. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the
petitioner had actively participated in the commission of offence and there
are ten more FIRs against him. However, he is unable to controvert the
submissions with regard to the custody, stage of the case, co-accused
having been granted bail and the petitioner being on bail in few of the cases,
registered against him.
4. Heard.
5. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd.
Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382 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 (supra), 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."
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the
petitioner has been in custody for the last 3 years, 3 months and 15 days;
co-accused have already been granted bail; though, there are other cases
against him, but in few of them, he is on bail; out of 30, only 3 PWs,
including the complainant, who did not support the prosecution case, have
been examined as yet; the trial is likely to take considerable time,
thus his further incarceration would not serve any useful
purpose, thus the present petition for grant of regular bail
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084297
deserves to be allowed.
7. As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to
the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and also 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.
8. 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.
9. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084297
herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be
construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would
proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.
05.07.2023 (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
gsv JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084297
4 of 4
