IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial are critical in bail considerations, allowing for bail despite serious charges.

JUDGMENT :

HARSH BUNGER, J.

CRM-14987-2024

1. This is an application for placing on record the reply to the status report filed by the respondent/State along with Annexures P-4 and P-5.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and reply to the status report along with Annexures P-4 and P-5 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

3. Application is accordingly disposed of.

CRM-M- 11449-2024

1. Petitioner (Deepanshu) has filed this second petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 44, dated 20.01.2022, under Sections 379-B, 392, 397, 454 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Meham, Rohtak (Annexure P-1).

2. The earlier petition filed by petitioner seeking regular bail was dismissed as withdrawn by petitioner vide order dated 24.05.2023 (Annexure P-3).

3. Reply by way of affidavit dated 20.03.2024 of Mr. Sandeep Kumar, H.P.S., Deputy Superintendent of Police, Meham, District Rohtak, has been filed on behalf of State of Haryana, which is already on record.

4. Custody certificate dated 18.04.2024 of the petitioner has been filed by learned State counsel in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

5. Briefly, the aforesaid case FIR was registered on the basis of a statement made by the complainant-Sachin, stating that on 20.01.2022, at about 5:53 P.M., four young boys came on a black motorcycle and after parking the said motorcycle, they entered into the shop of the complainant. It is averred that all the four boys were carrying country made pistol in their hands and on gun point, they took away Rs.1,50,000/- from the locker, two gold rings and one mobile phone bearing SIM Nos. 8295442388 and 8059590096 from the complainant and fled away from the spot. Accordingly, the aforesaid case FIR was registered.

6. As per the reply filed by learned State counsel, it is stated that on the basis of CCTV footage, accused were identified as Deepanshu (petitioner) and Ajay (co-accused). It is further stated that the petitioner (Deepanshu) and co-accused (Ajay) were arrested by the police in this case on 22.02.2022 and their disclosure statements were recorded. As per the disclosure statement of the petitioner-Deepanshu, a sum of Rs.23,000/-, a knife and a pair of shoes were recovered and as per the disclosure statement of the co-accused- Ajay, a sum of Rs.10,000/-, revolver and the clothes worn by him at the time of the alleged occurrence were recovered. On the basis of the disclosure statements of the petitioner (Deepanshu) as well as co-accused (Ajay), Virender @ Deepak (co-accused) was arrested on 23.02.2022. It is further stated that Virender @ Deepak (co-accused) got the place of occurrence demarcated and a recovery of Rs.25,000/- was effected from him. The fourth accused was identified as Sunil @ Peela and during the investigation, it has been revealed that Sunil @ Peela (co-accused) has expired.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 21.02.2022. It is further submitted that the investigation in this case is complete; challan stands presented on 19.05.2022 and even charges have been framed on 14.03.2023 and trial is going on. It is stated that there are total 14 prosecution witnesses, however, only 5 witnesses (including complainant) have been examined till date, therefore the conclusion of trial is likely to take some time and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. While referring to Annexure P-4, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the complainant has failed to identify the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the bail applica