Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jitender @ Lala vs State Of Haryana on 20 December, 2023

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164434




CRM-M No.53115 of 2023(O&M)                    -1-       2023:PHHC: 164434

105+216
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH

                                           CRM-M No. 53115 of 2023(O&M)
                                           Decided on :- 20.12.2023


JITENDER @ LALA

                                                                   ... Petitioner

                                           Versus

STATE OF HARYANA
                                                                  ... Respondent


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY.

Present:-    Mr. Parvez Chaudhary, Advocate with
             Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate and
             Mr. Hargun Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

             Mr. Surender Singh, AAG, Haryana.

                                 *****

SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL)

CRM-52328-2023

1. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner prays for withdrawal of the instant application at this stage.

2. Dismissed as withdrawn at this stage.

CRM-53887-2023

1. Instant application has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking amendment of the petition.

2. Heard.

3. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, same is 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2023 01:10:59 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164434 CRM-M No.53115 of 2023(O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC: 164434 allowed and Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC is ordered to be added and Section 210 IPC is ordered to be deleted in the head note and prayer clause of the main petition. Registry to do the needful. Amended petition is ordered to be taken on record.

4. Disposed of.

Main case

1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the following case (Annexure P-1):-

 FIR No.      Dated                Sections                  Police Station
     12     17.01.2023     379-A IPC (210 IPC is             Ladwa, District
                         substituted with 201 and 34          Kurukshetra
                                     IPC)
      no. 2), Mo

2. It is inter alia contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement. He submits that he is in custody since long, challan has been presented in Court on 29.03.2023 charges have been framed on 16.11.2023, and prosecution has cited 20 witnesses and none has been examined till date, possible recovery has already been effected from the petitioner, as such he prays for grant of concession of bail to the petitioner.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel ha filed reply by way of affidavit dated 19.12.2023 of Tarun Saini, HPS, DSP, Ladwa Kurukshetra and argued that considering the nature and gravity of offence, petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail. He submits that petitioner is a habitual offender and also involved in three other cases, however he has admitted that 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2023 01:11:00 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164434 CRM-M No.53115 of 2023(O&M) -3- 2023:PHHC: 164434 out of three cases, in two, petitioner is on bail and in one case he is in custody.

4. Considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, it transpires that the petitioner is in custody since long in the present case and he has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement, challan has already been presented in the Court, charges have been framed and out of 20 witnesses cited by the prosecution none has been examined till date and conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time to ascertain criminal liability, if any, of the petitioner and no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner any longer in custody.

5. Consequently, without commenting on the merits of the case, it is observed that no purpose would be served in keeping petitioner behind bars. Therefore, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court concerned, if not required in any other case; undertaking to regularly appear on each and every date; not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court; and not to tamper with evidence of prosecution in any manner.

6. Any observation made above shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.

7. Pending application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of.




                                                            (SANJIV BERRY)
                                                                 JUDGE
20.12.2023
Gyan       i)      Whether speaking/reasoned?               Yes/No
           ii)     Whether reportable?                      Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164434 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2023 01:11:00 :::