Allowed

Ramesh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Jul 2020CRM-M/12961/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the second petition for regular bail. Considering the petitioner's custody duration of over a year, the presentation of the challan, and the delay in trial due to lack of prosecution witnesses and the COVID-19 situation, the petitioner was directed to be released on bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Ramesh Vs State of Haryana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2020)

¶1

CRM-M No.12961 of 2020 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M No.12961 of 2020 (O&M) Decided on: 20.07.2020

Ramesh

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

¶10

Present : Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner (through video conferencing)

¶11

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG, Haryana. (through video conferencing)

¶12

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)

¶13

Prayer in this 2^nd petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') in FIR No.81 dated 21.03.2018, for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’), registered at Police Station Rania, District Sirsa.

¶14

The earlier petition was dismissed on merits on 05.11.2019.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the new ground for filing this 2^nd petition is that challan has been presented and the custody of the petitioner is more than 11 months, 15 days and due to COVID-19 situation, the trial which is magisterial, is not proceeding.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as per the FIR, registered at the instance of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ellenabad for taking action against Boor Singh, Khushal Singh (since deceased) (father of the present petitioner) and one Ramesh Kumar, on

¶17

MOHD YAKUB 2020.07.20 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

¶18

CRM-M No.12961 of 2020 (O&M) 2

¶19

presentation of an agreement to sell dated 14.10.1997, an enquiry was conducted regarding its authenticity by the office of SDM, Ellenabad, wherein it was found that the stamp paper is fake and the agreement to sell is also fake.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that now the main accused namely Boor Singh, who was the beneficiary of the agreement to sell, has been granted the concession of bail vide order dated 05.03.2020 as even the matter pertaining to the agreement to sell is the subject-matter of CWP No.22379 of 2019 filed by the said Boor Singh.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that there are no direct allegations against the petitioner as he is neither the signatory nor the beneficiary of the agreement to sell and being the son of Khushal Singh, he is arrayed as an accused. It is further submitted that now challan sands presented, the custody of the petitioner is about 01 year and since it will take some time in conclusion of the trial as no prosecution witness has been examined, so far, the petitioner may be granted the concession of bail.

¶22

Counsel for the State has filed the affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ellenabad. In the affidavit, the complete details of the investigation conducted by the police as well as the enquiry conducted by the SDO, Civil, are given. As per the affidavit, the agreement to sell dated 14.10.1997, was found to be a fake document and even in a pending civil suite, the signatures of Amar Lal, were found to be fake by the Hand-writing Expert.

¶23

However, counsel for the State has not disputed the fact

¶24

MOHD YAKUB 2020.07.20 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

¶25

CRM-M No.12961 of 2020 (O&M)

¶26

¶27

that the petitioner is the first offender and is not involved in any other case.

¶28

Without commenting anything on merits of the case, considering the fact that challan sands presented; the petitioner is in custody for a period of about 01 year and conclusion of the trial will take some time, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

¶29

However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail of the petitioner, in case he is found involved in any other case or misusing the concession of bail, in any manner.

¶30

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) 20.07.2020 JUDGE yakub Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶31

MOHD YAKUB 2020.07.20 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

Ramesh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kusum Lata Vs State of Haryana

Rajpal Singh Rana Vs State of Haryana

Chander Vs State of Haryana and Others

Krishan Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Mohit Vs State of Haryana

Pawan Bhoriya @ Pawan Bhoria @ Pawan Vs State of Haryana