Allowed

Mukesh Sharma v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Nov 2020CRM-M/5320/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in a case under Section 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 420 IPC, considering the custody duration and maximum sentence, despite the objection regarding identical prior cases.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Mukesh Sharma Vs State of Haryana — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-M-5320-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 25.11.2020

Mukesh Sharma

… Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

¶9

Present:Mr. S.S. Mor, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, DAG Haryana.

¶11

(proceedings conducted through video conferencing)

¶12

¶13

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral)

¶14

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in a case registered vide FIR No.174 dated 12.7.2019 under Section 138 of Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 420 IPC at Police Station Sadar Narwana, District Jind.

¶15

The allegations, in nutshell, are that the petitioner who was working as a Contractor with DHBVN had issued electricty connections to land owners without formal permission for extension of such connections having been granted by the Nigam.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no evidence worth credence to show that the petitioner had extended any illegal connections and that the petitioner, in any case, had remained in custody for about 7-1/2 months, although the maximum sentence that may be imposed is 3 years.

¶17

KAMAL KUMAR 2020.11.26 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-5320-2020 (O&M)

¶19

¶20

On the other hand, the learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner has been involved in three identical cases, no case for grant of bail is made out. The learned State counsel has, however, not disputed that the petitioner who is presently on interim bail has otherwise remained in custody for about 7-1/2 months.

¶21

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

¶22

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also while bearing in mind the maximum sentence that may be imposed for an offence under Section 138 of Electricity Act and also while noticing the custody period of the petitioner, the petition is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶23

25.11.2020			(Gurvinder	Singh Gill)
kamal				Judge
	Whether speaking /reasoned	Yes	/ No
	Whether Reportable	Yes	/ No

¶24

KAMAL KUMAR 2020.11.26 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mukesh Sharma v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Sharma 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

Iqbal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Farukh Vs State of Haryana

Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Rajpal Vs State of Punjab

Kuldeep Singh @ Deep Vs State of Punjab

Sarvodya Rakesh Bahri Vs State of Punjab