High CourtsSingle Bench

Dharamvir vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 19 September 2018 · Citation: (2018) 09 P&H CK 0125

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 170, 406, 420, 506
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous -M- No. 30845 of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 360 words

This petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 96 dated

21.04.2018, registered under Sections 170, 406, 420, 506 and 120-B of the IPC at Police Station Sadar Ambala, District Ambala.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegations in the FIR, the complainants have stated that they have met with one Sukhdev

Singh who introduced them with the petitioner who was serving as a Sub Inspector in the Crime Branch of Haryana Police and thereafter, they had

given some amount in the years 2014-2016 for the recruitment to the post of Head Constable in the Haryana Police. Learned counsel for the petitioner

further submits that the petitioner is not involved in any other case; the investigation is complete and the petitioner is not required for any further

custodial interrogation. It is also submitted that co-accused of the petitioner, namely Sukhdev Singh, has already been granted concession of regular

bail vide order dated 02.07.2018 passed in

CRM-M-26697-2018 noticing the fact that the complainants have compromised with him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in fact Sukhdev Singh is a relative of the complainants and on that account, they have

compromised the matter with him. It is further submitted that allegation of handing over the money pertains to the year 2014-2016 whereas the present

FIR has been registered in 2018.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Vijay Kumar, has not disputed the factual position.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Without commenting upon the merits of the case, considering the facts that the investigation is complete; challan has been presented; petitioner is in

judicial custody since 28.04.2018 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time as the offences are triable by the Court of a Magistrate and

also in view of the fact that co-accused has already been granted concession of regular bail, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to

be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.