Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharmender vs State Of Haryana on 7 April, 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
205
CRM-M-29477-2020
Date of decision: 07.04.2021
Dharmender …..Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana …..Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI
Present : Ms. Mehak Sawhney, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana
for the respondent.
****
ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, J. (ORAL)
(The case has been taken up for hearing through video
conferencing.)
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.P.C”) for grant
of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 207 dated 06.09.2020 registered
under Sections 148, 323 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Chhainsa, District Faridabad.
Vide order dated 24.09.2020, the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court had while issuing notice of motion granted interim anticipatory
bail to the petitioner with direction to join the investigation and the
relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
” This petition is by the petitioner Dharmender aged
34 years inter alia with a prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail in case FIR No. 0207 dated 06.09.2020 under
Sections 148/149/323/506 IPC registered at PS Chhainsa,
District Faridabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
fact the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 09:49:24 :::
CRM-M-29477-2020 -2-
case.
Notice of motion.
On the asking, Mr. Rajiv Goel, DAG Haryana
accepts notice through video conferencing.
Learned State counsel, on instructions from HC
Jyoti submits that there are 5 more FIRs allegedly
registered against the petitioner.
Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that out of 5 FIRs, the petitioner stands acquitted
in 4 FIRs except the present FIR which is still pending.
Learned counsel further submits that he has
instructions from his client and his family members that in
order to show his bona fide, the petitioner will not involve
himself in any other case like the present. He is ready to
give and undertaking that in case he is found involved and
held guilty in any subsequent case after the present, the
property papers (that he shall deposit with Investigating
Officer who, in turn, shall deposit the same with the trial
Court when the trial begins) worth approximately Rs. 20
lakhs which shall remain as security shall stand forfeited
and the same shall be deposited in the Government
Treasury.
Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that
because of COVID situation also, retaining of the
petitioner behind the bars would be dangerous to his life.
Without commenting upon the merits of the case and
without recording any opinion, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it
appropriate to direct the petitioner to join the
investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer.
List on 09.12.2020.
Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be
released on interim bail subject to his furnishing
personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner
shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do
so and cooperate with the Arresting/Investigating Officer
and shall abide by the conditions as provided under
Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
In addition to the bail bonds/surety and in
pursuance to the offer made by counsel for the petitioner,
the petitioner shall hand over, within one month from
today, the original property papers of Rs.20 lakhs with the
Investigating Officer. He would further give an
undertaking that he will not involve himself in any other
case like the present and in case he is found involved and
held guilty in any subsequent case after the present, the
property papers (that he shall deposit with Investigating
Officer who, in turn, shall deposit the same with the trial
Court when the trial begins) worth approximately Rs. 20
lakhs which shall remain as security shall stand forfeited
2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 09:49:25 :::
CRM-M-29477-2020 -3-
and the same shall be deposited in the Government
Treasury, which shall await further orders by the trial
Court.”
The petition has been opposed by the learned State
Counsel. However, no reply has been filed by the respondent-State.
I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
State Counsel and have gone through the record.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, while reiterating
submissions made on 24.09.2020 submitted that in compliance with
order dated 24.09.2020, the petitioner has joined the investigation and
submitted property papers and he may be granted anticipatory bail as
his custodial interrogation is not required in the case.
Learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the
petition and submitted that in view of gravity of accusation, the
petitioner does not deserve grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the
petition may be dismissed.
However, learned State Counsel has, on instructions from
H.C. Netarpal, acknowledged that in compliance with order dated
24.09.2020 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the
investigation and submitted his property papers and that his custodial
interrogation is not required in the present case.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature
of accusation against the petitioner, the fact that custodial interrogation
of the petitioner is not required in the case and there is no material to
justify the apprehension of the petitioner fleeing from justice or
tampering with evidence or criminally intimidating the prosecution
witnesses but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 09:49:25 :::
CRM-M-29477-2020 -4-
I am of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the grant of
anticipatory bail.
In view of the above, the petition is allowed and order
dated 24.09.2020 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made
absolute. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation again if
and as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions
enumerated in Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C., failing which the
protection of anticipatory bail order shall not be available to him.
07.04.2021 (ARUN KUMAR TYAGI)
kavneet singh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 09:49:25 :::
Comments