Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljeet Singh vs State Of Haryana on 1 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043251
CRM-M-12753 of 2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:043251
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
212
CRM-M-12753 of 2024
Date of Decision: 01.04.2024
Baljeet Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Baljinder Singh Virk, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
*****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
This is a petition seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR
No.33, dated 13.02.2021, under Sections 420 and 409 of the IPC, 1860,
registered at Police Station Hathin, District Palwal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged
embezzled amount to the tune of Rs.84,09,779/- has been actually attributed
to Secretary Jai Bhagwan of the Panchayat and the co-villager Harkesh. It is
also his assertion that the only allegation qua the petitioner is that he is having
the custody of the record and apart from that no other role is assigned to him.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has produced the copy
of the custody certificate, which is taken on record and he prays for dismissal
of the instant petition stating that the petitioner is involved in another case
meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.
Be that as it may, considering the fact that no recovery is to be
effected from the possession of the petitioner, investigation is complete, challan
stands filed and charges have also been framed on 30.11.2023 and the fact
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043251
CRM-M-12753 of 2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:043251
that out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, only one has been examined so far
which is sufficient to infer for this Court that the trial will take long time, no
useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for
uncertain period, wherein bail is a rule and jail is an exception and it would
also violate the principle of right to speedy trial and expeditious disposal
under Article 21 of Constitution of India, as has been time and again
discussed by this Court, while relying the judgment of the Apex Court
passed in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 131.
As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of the
petitioner in other cases is concerned, reliance can be placed upon the order of
this Court rendered in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as "Baljinder Singh alias
Rock vs. State of Punjab" decided on 02.03.2023, wherein, while referring
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the
time of granting bail, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked
into but at the same time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence
during the course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in
that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in the other pending cases.
In view of the above, petitioner is directed to be released on
regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
The present petition is, hereby, allowed.
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
01.04.2024 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
