Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 16 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145699
CRM-M-56281-2023 -1- 2023:PHHC:145699
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(225)
CRM-M-56281-2023
Date of decision: - 16.11.2023
Sandeep Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:- Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep Joshi, DAG, Haryana.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a second petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.409 dated
08.11.2020 under Sections 392 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
registered at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been in custody since 27.11.2020 and the investigation in
the present case has been completed and the challan has already been
presented and there are as many as 11 prosecution witnesses, none of
whom have been examined, thus, the trial is likely to take time. It is
further submitted that the recovery in the present case has already been
effected and as per the challan, out of the alleged snatched amount of
Rs.50,000, Rs.8,000/- has been recovered from the petitioner. It is
contended that a perusal of the FIR would show that it has been stated by
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145699
CRM-M-56281-2023 -2- 2023:PHHC:145699
the complainant that he himself sat in the car in which the petitioner and
the other co-accused were already there and thus, the ingredients of
abduction are not made out in the present case. It is further submitted that
the petitioner had earlier filed a bail application, which was dismissed as
withdrawn at that stage on 10.09.2021 and even thereafter sufficient
period of time has lapsed, but the trial has not made any progress and co-
accused of the petitioner, namely, Gagan, who is a similarly placed as the
present petitioner, has been granted the concession of regular bail by this
Court, vide order dated 05.07.2022 passed in CRM-M-7374-2022.
3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the
present application for regular bail and has submitted that the petitioner is
involved in other cases.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has relied upon
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled "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 and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected
solely 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."
5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
has perused the paper book.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145699
CRM-M-56281-2023 -3- 2023:PHHC:145699
6. The petitioner has been in custody since 27.11.2020 and the
challan in the present case has already been presented and there are as
many as 11 prosecution witnesses, none of whom have been examined.
The earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn
at that stage on 10.09.2021 and even after the passing of the said order, a
period of more than 2 years and 2 months has elapsed and yet, the trial
has not made any progress as no witness has been examined till date and
thus, it entitles the petitioner to file the second regular bail application.
Recovery has already been effected from the present petitioner and as per
the FIR, it was the complainant who himself sat in the car in which the
petitioner and the other co-accused were stated to be already sitting and
co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Gagan, who is a similarly placed as
the present petitioner, has been granted the concession of regular bail by
this Court, vide order dated 05.07.2022 passed in CRM-M-7374-2022.
6. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances and
also in view of the law down in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi'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, subject to him not being
required in any other case.
7. However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by the
petitioner to threaten or influence the complainant or any of the witnesses,
then it would be open to the State to move an application for cancellation
of bail granted to the petitioner.
8. Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145699
CRM-M-56281-2023 -4- 2023:PHHC:145699
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 )
November 16, 2023 JUDGE
naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145699
4 of 4
