Sat Parkash vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner-Sat Parkash son of Daya Lal, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him, vide FIR No. 42 dated 15.04.2014, on accusation of having committed an offence punishable u/s 420 IPC, by the police of Police Station Roj-Ka-Meo, District Mewat.

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on May 26, 2014:-

Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that although petitioner has rightly received the old age pension but he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant in order to wreak vengeance. Moreover, the petitioner has already deposited the excess amount with the concerned department, vide receipt dated 20.05.2014 (Annexure P-1) and nothing is to be recovered from him.

Heard.

Notice of motion be issued to the respondents, returnable for 16.07.2014.

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of his arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to his satisfaction.

At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Samay Singh, learned State counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. Moreover, the offence alleged against the accused is triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, during the course of trial of main case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner, by virtue of indicated order by this Court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for pre-arrest bail. At the same time, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this Court.