Rajesh Arora vs The State Of Haryana on 28 September, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajesh Arora vs The State Of Haryana on 28 September, 2012

Author: Sabina

Bench: Sabina

Crl. Misc. No.M-20505 of 2012 &                     -1-
Crl. Misc. No.M-14264 of 2012 (O&M)

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH

                            Date of decision: 28.09.2012

i)                          Crl. Misc. No.M-20505 of 2012

Rajesh Arora
                                                                 .....Petitioner

                                  Versus

The State of Haryana

                                                               .....Respondent

ii)                         Crl. Misc. No.M-14264 of 2021(O&M)

Anish Sethi
                                                                 .....Petitioner

                                  Versus

State of Haryana

                                                               .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:       Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate with
               Mr. D.S. Brar, Advocate
               for the petitioner in Crl. Misc. No.M-20505 of 2012.

               Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, Advocate
               for the petitioner in Crl. Misc. No.M-14264 of 2012

               Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana

                     ****

SABINA, J.

Vide this order, the above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of.

Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.145 dated 19.03.2011 registered under Sections 406 & 420 of the Indian Crl. Misc. No.M-20505 of 2012 & -2- Crl. Misc. No.M-14264 of 2012 (O&M) Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Urban Estate, District Rohtak.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are in custody since 04.04.2012. Challan has already been presented against the petitioners and they are not required for further investigation. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in fact petitioner-Rajesh Arora was doing small business of sale of Dish Set-Top Boxes and Recharge Coupons. Petitioner Anish Sethi was an employee of petitioner Rajesh Arora. The said petitioners had no concern with the purchasers who were indulging in some illegal activities.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand has opposed the petition.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petitions deserve to be allowed.

Petitioners are in custody since 04.04.2012. Challan has also been presented against the petitioners and they are not required for further investigation.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both the petitions are allowed. Petitioners be admitted on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak.

(SABINA) JUDGE 28.09.2012 vcgarg

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court