Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subhash Chand vs State Of Haryana on 12 November, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-51041-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-51041-2024
Reserved on: 04.11.2024
Pronounced on: 12.11.2024
Subhash Chand ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, DAG, Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR Dated Police Station Sections
No.
19 13.03.2024 Rohadai, District Rewari 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC
and 61 of Punjab Excise (Haryana
Amendment Bill, 2020)
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this
Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking
regular bail.
2. In paragraph 10 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal
antecedents.
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State,
which reads as follows:
"3. That the facts forming the genesis of the present FIR are
that on 12.03.2024, SI Satbir along with EHC Anil was present at
Palhawas Chowk in connection with crime patrolling duties, then
he received a secret information to the effect that a canter
bearing registration no. HR-55AK-5616, loaded with liquor, will
go via Rewari towards Jhajjar. The said canter is being driven
by Balraj. Upon this information, necessary barricades were put
on the road and after some time, one canter was seen coming,
which on signal to stop, drove over the divider and was
overturned. The driver had been apprehended and on enquiry, he
disclosed his name as Balraj son of Dan Singh. On checking, the
smell of alcohol was coming from the body of said vehicle, so
AETO, Excise Department, Rewari has been informed, who
along with his staff reached at the spot and has moved an
application. Thereafter, the vehicle was checked and it was found
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-51041-2024
to be loaded with liquor. The liquor was taken into possession
and Balraj was apprehended. Accordingly, the FIR
aforementioned was registered and the investigations were taken
up in the matter."
4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and
contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the
petitioner and their family.
5. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report,
which read as follows:
"7. That upon verification the records of the vehicle on the
basis of engine and chassis number, it was found that the said
vehicle was purchased by Subhash son of Vishnu Dutt (petitioner
herein) in the month of May 2022, however, he had not got the
vehicle registered till date.
8. That on 29.03.2024, the petitioner was joined in the
investigation of the case and was interrogated while being in
custody. Upon interrogation, the petitioner had disclosed that he
had rented the said vehicle in the month of August 2023 to the co-
accused Hitesh for the purpose of use of the same in liquor
smuggling and the co-accused Hitesh used to pay Rs. One Lac per
trip to the petitioner. He further disclosed that he had also got
prepared an affidavit regarding sale of the vehicle from the
petitioner on the safer side.
9. That thereafter, on 29.03.2024 itself, the co- accused
Hitesh was joined in the investigation of the case. He was arrested
upon receipt of appropriate incriminating evidence against him.
He was also interrogated while being in custody and upon
interrogation, he conceded his involvement in the present crime.
He apprised the investigating agency that he had taken on rent the
vehicle aforementioned from the petitioner at rental of Rs. One
Lac per trip for the purpose of using the same in act of liquor
smuggling. He further apprised that he alongwith co-accused
Amandeep used to get said vehicle loaded from Punjab and used
to send the same to Gujrat. On 31.03.2024, the affidavit regarding
the sale of the vehicle was taken into possession."
7. There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged
crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction
sentencing. Per paragraph 10 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since
29.03.2024. Per the custody certificate dated 02.11.2024, the petitioner's total custody in
this FIR is 07 months and 03 days. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial
custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other
factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pre-trial incarceration
at this stage.
8. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar
to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail.
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-51041-2024
This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official
webpage.
9. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the
petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds
to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest
Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must
be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
10. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the
following personal identification details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number (If available) and when the
attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or
considers the accused a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
11. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.
12. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the
concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence,
influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any
witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the
Court.
13. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
14. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any
Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the
official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants
to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may
download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.
15. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
12.11.2024 JUDGE
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
