AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.437 dated 22.07.2024, registered under Sections 111(2)(B), 61(2), 336(2), 337, 199, 340 of the BNS, 2023, Sections 25(6)-54-59 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station Indri, District Karnal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 10.04.2025. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has urged that challan, upon culmination of investigation, already stands filed and total 32 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but the trial is yet to begin as the charges could not be framed for lack of requisite sanction against co-accused – Madan Lal. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is not in a position to interfere with the prosecution evidence. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
Learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the status report by way of an affidavit dated 26.01.2026, which is already on record, has opposed the present petition by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. It has been argued that the petitioner is involved in 01 more FIR and, hence, he ought not to be extended the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 12.08.2026, in Court today, which is taken on record.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
The petitioner was arrested on 10.04.2025, whereinafter, the investigation was carried out and the challan qua the petitioner stands presented on 01.07.2025. Total 32 prosecution witnesses have been cited and it is the conceded case before this Court that trial proceedings have not effectively taken place for lack of requisite sanction against co-accused – Madan Lal. Keeping in view factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the petitioner having suffered incarceration for more than 01 year & 03 months, challan having been presented after culmination of investigation and trial has not effectively begin for lack of requisite sanction against co-accused – Madan Lal; this Court is inclined to affirmatively consider the instant bail plea.
The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall essentially be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
As per custody certificate dated 12.08.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year, 03 months and 25 days.
Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586, a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:
The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
Ordered accordingly.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand disposed off.