Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinod Kohli vs State Of Haryana on 15 March, 2024
CRM-M-5175-2024 2024:PHHC:037695 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
201 CRM-M-5175-2024
Date of decision: 15.03.2024
Vinod Kohi ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Addl. AG, Haryana.
***
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
1. Prayer in the present 2nd petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.78 dated 16.02.2022,
registered under Sections 403, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, at Police
Station Babin, District Kurukshetra.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for the
last 1 year and about 9 months. He was not a signatory to the agreement in
question. The main accused Kamal Kohli alias Kamal Kumar Kohli has been
granted bail vide order dated 04.01.2024. The offences are triable by
Magistrate. Charges were framed on 13.12.2022, however, out of 11
prosecution witnesses, only 6 have been examined so far. The complainant is
not coming forward for deposition, despite bailable warrants having been
issued against him. Reference in this regard is made to the order dated
01.12.2023. The supplementary challan has been presented only under
Section 406 and 420 IPC and charges are yet to be framed. An application
has been filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon Ram Karan son of
integrity of this order/judgment
Jagdish. The petitioner is involved in 16 cases under the IPC, wherein he is on
bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble The Supreme Court in
Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC
3. The custody certificate dated 14.03.2024, filed by learned State
counsel is taken on record, as per which, the petitioner is behind bars for 1
year, 8 months and 27 days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there
are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner of having been involved
in the commission of offence alongwith the other co-accused Kamal Kohli
alias Kamal Kumar Kohli. He is however unable to controvert the
submissions made regarding the stage of the case, co-accused has been
granted bail as also the petitioner being on bail in other cases.
5. Heard.
6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court 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." Reiterating in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and
another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, it was observed that, "The offence alleged no
doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending
against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for
refusal of prayer for bail."
integrity of this order/judgment
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular
that the petitioner is in custody for last 1 year, 8 months and 27 days; on bail
in other cases; co-accused has been granted bail; despite having been issued
bailable warrants, complainant did not put in appearance before the trial
Court; it is a case of Magisterial trial; though charges have been framed on
13.12.2022, but out of a total of 11 prosecution witnesses, only 6 have been
examined so far; the trial is likely to take a considerable time, thus his further
incarceration would not serve any useful purpose, 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 required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the
following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence
during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the
prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on
each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a
specific order of Court.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar
to the offence of which, she is an accused, or for
commission of which she is suspected of.
(v) 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.
(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse her
liberty.
(vii) The petitioner shall furnish her address and mobile
number to the Trial Court forthwith and shall not
integrity of this order/judgment
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.
(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without
prior permission of the trial Court.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any
other condition, as deemed appropriate while
releasing the petitioner.
(x) The petitioner shall appear before the police station
concerned on the first Monday of every month till
the conclusion of the trial and inform in writing
each time that he is not involved in any other crime
other than the cases mentioned in this case.
(xi) The petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall
prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and
deposit the same with the trial Court. The same
would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of
the absence of the petitioner from trial without
sufficient cause.
(xii) The petitioner shall file an affidavit with regard to
the immovable properties owned by him before the
trial Court and shall not alienate the same during the
pendency of the trial.
9. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach 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 )
15.03.2024 JUDGE
Hemant
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
integrity of this order/judgment
