High CourtsSingle Bench

Pardeep vs State Of Haryan

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 3 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 P&H CK 0045

HON’BLE JUDGES
Lalit Batra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 379A
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 31677 Of 2020
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

20 paragraphs · 358 words

Lalit Batra, J

Present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C is for grant of regular bail to petitioner-Pardeep in case FIR No.17 dated 18.03.2020 under Section 379-A

IPC, registered at Police Station GRP Jind, District GRP, Ambala Cantonment.

In compliance of order dated 13.10.2020, short reply dated 23.11.2020 by way of affidavit of Gurdial Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Railways, Haryana, Hisar, filed on behalf of respondent-State, is taken on record, in terms of which, as per record, besides instant case, no other case

is registered against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for petitioner INTER ALIA contends that version, as alleged in the FIR, is totally concocted one and there is no iota of truth therein.

He further submits that in the instant case FIR, petitioner was arrested on 18.03.2020. He further urges that petitioner was granted interim bail by this

Court on 13.10.2020. He further urges that petitioner is no more required by the Police for any investigation purpose. He further submits that challan

has been presented in Court but charges are yet to be framed. He further urges that since trial of the case would take sufficient time to conclude, no

useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bar.

On the other hand, learned State counsel while opposing instant petition has vehemently argued that keeping in view seriousness of offence, petitioner

does not deserve the concession of bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of petition as well as reply furnished at the instance of respondent-

State.

At this stage, without commenting anything on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the outcome of the trial but taking into consideration the fact

that petitioner was already granted interim bail by this Court on 13.10.2020; that challan has already been presented in Court and since consequent

trial of the case would take sufficient time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bar, thus, he deserves

the concession of bail.

In view of above, order dated 13.10.2020 granting interim bail to petitioner, is made absolute and petition stands allowed.