Punjab-Haryana High Court
Abhishek @ Ashu vs State Of Haryana on 23 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009332
CRM-M-16672 of 2023 -1- 2024:PHHC:009332
220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-16672 of 2023
Date of decision:- 23.01.2024
ABHISHEK @ ASHU
... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY.
Present:- Mr. Sajjan Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Malik, DAG, Haryana.
*****
SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL)
Learned State counsel has filed custody certificate dated
22.01.2024, the same is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to
the counsel opposite.
2. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular in the
following case :-
FIR No. Dated Sections Police Station
202 11.05.2018 332, 353, 392, IPC and 25, Kharkhoda, District
Arms Act(397, 420, 468 and Sonipat
471 IPC were added lateron)
no. 2), Mo
3. It is inter alia contended by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009332
CRM-M-16672 of 2023 -2- 2024:PHHC:009332
He submits that the petitioner and other co-accused Rahul were arrested by
Sampla Police in another FIR bearing No. 421 dated 04.07.2018 under
Sections 186, 353, 307, and 34 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act and one firearm
was recovered from the petitioner and the petitioner was taken on production
warrants by the Investigating Agency in the present FIR. The petitioner was
not named in the FIR and his name surfaces in the disclosure statement
made by co-accused Sonu (Annexure P-2). He submits that no overt act has
been attributed to the petitioner and co-accused Ashish and Sonu have been
granted concession of bail vide orders dated 02.06.2018 and 13.06.2018
(Annexure P-7 and P-8) respectively. He has admitted the fact that there are
some other cases pending against the petitioner, though he has referred to the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of
U.P. & Anr., Law Finder Doc Id # 1670858 and prays for grant of
concession of bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the bail application on the
ground that there are other criminal cases pending against the petitioner and
he is habitual, as such he is not entitled to concession of bail.
5. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record,
it transpires that petitioner was arrested by Sampla Police in another FIR
bearing No. 421 dated 04.07.2018 under Sections 186, 353, 307, and 34 IPC
and 25, of the Arms Act and he was taken on production warrants by the
Investigating Agency in the present FIR on 26.12.2018. Learned State
counsel has opposed the bail petition on the ground that there are other
criminal cases pending against the petitioner. However, taking into
consideration the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabhakar
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009332
CRM-M-16672 of 2023 -3- 2024:PHHC:009332
Tewari's case (supra) wherein it has been held that while dealing with the
grant of bail the pendency of several criminal cases against the accused
cannot by itself be considered sufficient for refusal of prayer for bail. Even
otherwise, in the present case no specific overt act has been attributed to the
petitioner in the alleged occurrence and his name surfaces in the present case
on the disclosure statement made by co-accused Sonu (Annexure P-2). Co-
accused co-accused Ashish and Sonu have been granted concession of bail
vide orders dated 02.06.2018 and 13.06.2018 (Annexure P-7 and P-8)
respectively. The petitioner is in custody since 26.12.2018 in the present
case. The conclusion of trial to ascertain criminal liability, if any, of the
petitioner will take sufficient long time and no useful purpose would be
served by keeping the petitioner behind bars any longer.
6. Resultantly, without commenting on the merits of the case, it
is observed that no purpose would be served in keeping petitioner behind
bars. Therefore, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to
be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of learned Trial Court concerned, if not required in any other
case; undertaking to regularly appear on each and every date; not to leave
the country without prior permission of the Court; and not to tamper with
evidence of prosecution in any manner.
7. Any observation made above shall not be construed as opinion
of this Court on the merits of the case.
(SANJIV BERRY)
JUDGE
23.01.2024
Gyan i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009332
3 of 3
