Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mehtab Singh vs State Of Haryana on 19 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052716
CRM-M-62658 of 2023 -1- 2024:PHHC:052716
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
207
CRM-M-62658 of 2023
Date of Decision: 19.04.2024
Mehtab Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Sanpreet Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Baljinder Singh Virk, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate for the complainant.
*****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
This is a petition seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR
No.145, dated 03.05.2021, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 302, 120-B, 195-A and 34 IPC added later
on), registered at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the case and his motor-cycle was used in the
commissioning of the offence on which the other co-accused persons have
travelled to execute the offence. Apart from that, no other iota of incriminating
material was found against the petitioner in the FIR itself and subsequent in the
investigation.
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 other cases
meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.
Be that as it may, considering the fact that investigation is
complete, challan stands filed and earlier charges have been framed on
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052716
CRM-M-62658 of 2023 -2- 2024:PHHC:052716
14.10.2021 and subsequently, fresh charges have been framed on 28.03.2024
and the fact that out of total 45 prosecution witnesses, only 01 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)
19.04.2024 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
