Allowed

Mukesh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Mar 2021CRM-M/3956/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court held that since the petitioner was in custody since October 2020 and no recovery was needed from him, keeping him in jail served no useful purpose, as the veracity of the disputed affidavit was a matter of trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail on execution of adequate personal/surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

Mukesh Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRM-M No.3956 of 2021 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M No.3956 of 2021 (O&M) Date of Decision.25.03.2021

Mukesh

...Petitioner

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

¶11

Present: Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. P.P. Chahar, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

-.-

¶14

JAISHREE THAKUR J. (ORAL)

¶15

The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.675 dated 28.09.2020 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sonipat City, Sonipat.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner herein has falsely been implicated in the said FIR. The vehicle bearing No.HR-14Q-4431 allegedly owned by son of the complainant was transferred in the name of the petitioner herein on 29.11.2018 in connivance with the officials of the concerned registration and licensing authority, as is evident from the fact that the said vehicle was further registered in the name of one Rajesh Kumar on the same very day i.e. 29.11.2018. Even the original file regarding the aforesaid vehicle is reported as untraced and no action has been taken against the officials from the registration and licensing authority, who were dealing with the matter at that point of time. It is further argued that the petitioner herein has been made a scapegoat. No attempt has been made to verify the specimen

¶17

PANKAJ KUMAR 2021.03.26 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

-2-

¶19

CRM-M No.3956 of 2021 (O&M)

¶20

signatures of the petitioner with the signatures put on the affidavit allegedly furnished by the petitioner at the time of registration of the vehicle in question. The petitioner is in custody since 09.10.2020 and no recovery is to be effected from him, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner would no longer be required.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes grant of regular bail to the petitioner by contending that the petitioner herein had submitted his affidavit at the time of registration of the aforesaid vehicle in his name. Investigation is still incomplete as other persons involved in the matter are required to be apprehended.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 09.10.2020 and no recovery is to be effected from him and the veracity of the alleged affidavit furnished by the petitioner at the time of registration of the vehicle in his name is a matter of trial, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on execution of adequate personal/surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, any observation made herein shall not be construed to be an expression on merits of the case.

¶23

(JAISHREE THAKUR) JUDGE

¶24

March 25, 2021 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶25

PANKAJ KUMAR 2021.03.26 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mukesh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh 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

Malkeet Singh @ Malla Vs State of Punjab

Jatinder Singh Sandhu Vs State of Punjab

Vikram Vs State of Haryana

Krishan Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sukhdev Raj @ Bobby Vs State of Punjab

Ram Pal Alias Rampal Pal Vs State of Punjab