Allowed

Rajiv @ Raju v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jan 2023CRM-M/2773/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed regular bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for petitioner in a fraud case where investigation concluded, challan filed, and only two prosecution witnesses examined, noting incarceration exceeded 1 year 4 months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds satisfactory to trial Court or Duty Magistrate.

Rajiv @ Raju Vs State of Haryana — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

CRM-M-2773-2022

¶2

--1--

¶3

207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-2773-2022

¶5

Decided on:-18.01.2023

Rajiv @ Raju

....Petitioner..

vs.

State of Haryana

....Respondent.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶12

Present: Mr. Amit Khari, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Sumit Jain, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. *****

¶14

HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)

¶15

By way of present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner prays for grant of regular bail pending trial in case FIR No.574 dated 06.09.2021, under Sections 285, 386, 427, 506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, the present FIR is an offshoot of exchange of money between the parties, which has been given a colour of criminal complaint, resulting into registration of the same. He further submits that investigation already stands concluded, challan filed and charges have been framed. He further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 10.09.2021 and so far, only two prosecution witnesses have been examined, out of total of 14. As such, trial is likely to take some time, thus, no useful purpose is going to be served by keeping him in custody.

¶17

On the other hand, prayer made in the present petition has been opposed at the instance of learned State counsel, who submits that there is

¶18

SONIKA 2023.01.18 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-2773-2022

¶20

--2--

¶21

one another FIR pending against the petitioner under Section 307 IPC, however, he is not in a position to rebut or dispute the fact that the investigation stands concluded and, so far, only two prosecution witnesses have been examined.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book.

¶23

Considering the facts that the investigation already stands concluded, challan filed and only two prosecution witnesses have been examined, so far, besides the complainant already having deposed in court, no useful purpose is going to be served by extending the incarceration of the petitioner any further, who is in custody since 10.09.2021 i.e. more than 1 year and 4 months.

¶24

Besides it, from a perusal of the statement of account (Annexure P-2) attached along with the present petition, it prima facie appears to be a civil dispute between the parties regarding recovery of amount.

¶25

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the mertis of the case, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner, namely, Rajiv @ Raju is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

¶26

Any observation made in this order shall have no bearing on the

¶27

merits of the case.

¶28

18.01.2023 sonika

¶29

(HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE

¶30

Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable:

¶31

Yes/No Yes/ No

¶32

SONIKA 2023.01.18 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Rajiv @ Raju v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv @ Raju 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

Kuldeep Singh Vs N/S Gauav Electronics and Anr.

Ballar @ Navi Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Gurmeet Singh @ Meeta Vs State of Punjab

Sonu @ Manda Vs State of Haryana

Balbir Singh Alias Pammu Alias Balvir Vs State of Punjab

Pradeep Kumar Verma and Another Vs State of U.T. Chandigarh and Another