Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sonia vs State Of Haryana on 13 December, 2019
Author: Sudhir Mittal
Bench: Sudhir Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.212
CRM-M-49919-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision : 13.12.2019
Sonia ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL
Present: Mr. S.S. Sahu, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Bansal, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate, for the complainant.
*****
SUDHIR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
The petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.273 dated 22.7.2019, registered at Police Station Civil Lines Hisar, Tehsil and District Hisar, under Sections 166, 219, 389, 406, 420, 506 and 120-B IPC (during investigation offence under Section 166, 219 IPC deleted).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody for over four months and there is no criminal case pending/decided against her. The trial of the case is not likely to be concluded at an early date as charges have yet not been framed. The present FIR has been got registered with the allegation that the complainant was threatened and coerced into executing a registered sale deed in respect of his property by threatening to make false allegations of rape and molestation against him. The said allegations are untrue as in the civil suit filed earlier, seeking setting aside of the sale deed, no such allegations have been made. Thus, regular bail may be granted to the petitioner.
Learned State counsel submits that according to the investigation of the police, the petitioner, her co-accused Asha and Sukhdev hatched a conspiracy to illegally acquire the property of the complainant and thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the bail. He however, does not 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2019 20:52:19 ::: CRM-M-49919-2019 (O&M) 2 deny the fact that the charges have not yet been framed and that there are no other criminal cases pending against the petitioner. He submits that the trial is being delayed by the petitioner as her counsel has taken three dates for argument on the framing of charges.
Learned counsel for the complainant submits that there is a C.D on record, in which the petitioner has admitted her offence. Moreover, cross- case registered against the complainant by the petitioner, has been found to be false and a cancellation report has been prepared by the police.
Thus, it is evident that the present case is the first criminal case registered against the petitioner. The trial is not likely to be concluded at an early date as charges have not yet been framed.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I deem it appropriate to allow this petition. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and petitioner, is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned.
(SUDHIR MITTAL)
JUDGE
13.12.2019
Ramandeep Singh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes/ No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2019 20:52:19 :::