Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1094

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.
Dhirender - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M-34783-2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 15-02-2022

Advocates:
Mr. Sanjeev Majra, Advocate for the Appellant; Mr. Surender Singh, AAG Haryana; `

The decision to grant regular bail was based on the prolonged custody period, lack of other pending cases, and the commencement of prosecution evidence.

Headnote:
Regular Bail - Criminal Law - The court granted the petitioner regular bail considering the custody period, lack of other pending cases, and the commencement of prosecution evidence.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. The petitioner had been in custody since 23.01.2021, and recovery had already been effected.
Finding of the Court:

The court granted the petitioner's request for regular bail, noting the custody period, lack of other pending cases, and the commencement of prosecution evidence. The court refrained from commenting on the merits of the case to avoid prejudicing either side.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail, considering the circumstances of the case, including the custody period and the commencement of prosecution evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to grant the petitioner regular bail based on the prolonged custody period, lack of other pending cases, and the commencement of prosecution evidence, without commenting on the merits of the case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the present petition and ordered the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.(Oral) - Through this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case bearing FIR No.20 dated 22.01.2021, registered under Sections 394, 397, 365, 34 IPC and Sections 25(1B)(a) and 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station DLF, District Gurugram, Haryana.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case; that co-accused, namely, Deepesh, has already been granted the concession of bail by the trial Court and that the challan has already been presented. He further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 23.01.2021; that the alleged recovery has already been effected from the petitioner and that there is no other case registered and/or pending against the petitioner.

3. On the other hand, while opposing the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, learned State counsel does not dispute the custody period of the petitioner. He, however, submits that the Test Identification Parade was conducted, in which the petitioner was duly identified by the complainant and that recovery of laptop and Stephanie of car was effected from the petitioner.

4. He further submits that prosecution evidence is yet to commence.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The petitioner has been in custody since 23.01.2021. There is no other case registered and/or pending against the petitioner. Recovery has already been effected. Co-accused has already been granted the concession of bail by the learned trial Court. Prosecution evidence is yet to commence. In such circumstance, the trial of the case would take a long time to conclude.

Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

6. In view of the above, without commenting anything on the merits, lest it should prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document