Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohd Ali @ Guddu vs State Of Haryana on 1 June, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080472
CRM-M-18044-2023 -1-
Neutral Citation: 2023:PHHC:080472
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
234
CRM-M-18044-2023
Date of decision: 01.06.2023
Mohd Ali @ Guddu
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. M. S. Nagra, AAG, Punjab
*****
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.308 dated 18.11.2018,
registered under Section 379 IPC and Section 136 of the Electricity Act at Police
Station Kunjpura, District Karnal.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for
about 1 year and 3 months. He has been falsely implicated in the present case on
the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused. He relies on the judgment
passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh vs. State of
Tamil Nadu, 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.). No recovery was effected from him. Charges
have been framed and the prosecution evidence is going on. The petitioner is
involved in other cases also in which he is on bail. In this regard, he relies on the
judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, (2012) 2 SCC 382.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080472
Neutral Citation: 2023:PHHC:080472
3. The custody certificate filed by the learned State counsel is taken on
record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for the last 1 year 2 months 29
days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the
petitioner was specifically named in the disclosure statement of the co-accused.
The transformer coils had been stolen by him alongwith the co-accused. There are
other cases against the petitioner. However, he is unable to controvert the
submissions with regard to the stage of the case and him being on bail in other
cases.
5. Heard.
6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India 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."
7. In view of the afore-referred judgments and facts and circumstances
of the case that the petitioner has been in custody since 1 year 2 months 29 days;
he is on bail in other cases registered against him; charges have been framed and
the prosecution evidence is going on which is likely to take considerable time to
conclude, 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
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080472
Neutral Citation: 2023:PHHC:080472
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 deposit his passport, if any, with the Trial
Court forthwith and in case, he does not have the passport, he shall
furnish a specific affidavit in this regard.
9. It is made clear that in case of any infraction 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
an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of
the aforesaid observations.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
01.06.2023
Mehak Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080472
3 of 3
