Gaurav Jain vs State of Haryana

Rajan Gupta, J.—This is a petition filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 341 dated 27.12.2010 under sections 420/467/468/471/120B/201 IPC at Police Station DLF-II, Gurgaon. Mr. Akshay Bhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that allegation against the petitioner is that he conspired alongwith main accused and received an amount of Rs. 1.2 crores. According to Mr. Bhan, by using said amount, a flat is alleged to have been purchased by the petitioner which has since been attached. According to him, petitioner is in custody since 17.02.2011. About 24 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Case is triable by Magistrate. He has placed reliance on judgment reported as Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI 2011 (4) RCR (Crl.) 898 to contend that investigation having been completed and trial being in progress, there is no good reason to detain the petitioner any longer.

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer. He, however, does not dispute the fact that 24 prosecution witnesses have already been examined and trial is in progress.

Mr. Cheema, learned senior counsel for the complainant has also intervened to oppose the prayer for bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has been in custody since 17.02.2011. He is alleged to be a conspirator in the crime. Trial appears to be proceedings at a normal pace as 24 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Keeping in view law laid-down by the apex court in Sanjay Chandra''s case supra, period of incarceration of the petitioner, role assigned to him and the fact that case is triable by Magistrate, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner any longer. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and he is directed to be enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Gurgaon.