Taj Ali vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner-Taj Ali son of Leelu, has directed the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, namely, Fiaz Ali, Birmati, Mahinder, Bijender and Joginder etc. by way of FIR No. 571 dated 21.07.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Civil Lines Karnal, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

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

During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.) passed the following order on December 27, 2012:-

This present petition has been filed u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 571 dated 21.07.2012 under Sections 420/467/468/471/506/120-B of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal.

Counsel contends that the petitioner has no role whatsoever with regard to the alleged agreement having been entered into between the complainant and the co-accused. That apart, counsel would refer to order dated 22.11.2012 passed by this Court in CRM No. M-34153 of 2012 (Annexure P-3), whereby the co-accused of the same very FIR has been granted the benefit of pre-arrest bail.

Notice of motion for 07.02.2013.

In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail by the Investigating/Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when required and shall bound with the conditions enumerated u/s 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

At the very outset, on the instructions from ASI Parveen Kumar, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the 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, it is not a matter of dispute that Fiaz Ali, Birmati and others, co-accused of the petitioner, have already been allowed the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order dated 22.11.2012 (Annexure P-3), rendered in CRM No. M-34153 of 2012 and order dated 12.09.2012 (Annexure P-4) in CRM No. M-26771 of 2012. In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court, by means of order dated December 27, 2012, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Needless to mention that, 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 relevant context.