IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.
Ateek - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M No. 24728 of 2021
Decided On : 07-07-2021
Regular Bail - Criminal Procedure Code - The court dismissed the petition for regular bail, citing the petitioner's criminal antecedents and involvement in multiple cases under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the trial.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a second petition for regular bail, citing prolonged custody and slow progress in the trial. The co-accused in the case had already been acquitted.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition for regular bail, citing the petitioner's criminal antecedents and involvement in multiple cases under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the trial.
Issues: Prolonged custody, slow progress in trial, criminal antecedents of the petitioner
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the petitioner's criminal antecedents and involvement in multiple cases under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code as reasons to dismiss the petition for regular bail. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the trial.
Final Decision: The petition for regular bail was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the trial.
JUDGMENT
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. - This is second petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.17, dated 17.01.2014, under Sections 395 and 458 of IPC, registered at Police Station Badshahpur, District Gurgaon. The earlier one having been dismissed as withdrawn on 29.07.2020.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 08.04.2019 and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future, as only 4 out of the 19 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. Learned counsel further submits that the co-accused, who were facing trial in the FIR in question already stand acquitted by the trial Court. Hence, he be extended the concession of regular bail.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer and submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from ASI Charan Singh, has apprised this Court and reiterated the submissions made when the earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.07.2020, that the petitioner was a man of criminal antecedents. She has apprised the Court that the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender not only in the instant FIR but he was also declared as proclaimed offender in another case. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is involved in another case under Section 395 IPC.
4. In the aforementioned circumstances, this Court is not inclined to extend the concession of bail.
5. Dismissed. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
6. A request has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has been in custody for about 2 years and 3 months, directions may be issued to the trial Court to expedite the trial.
7. In view of the request made, the trial Court is directed to make all endeavours to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of 8 months from today.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.