Randhir vs State Of Haryana on 20 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Randhir vs State Of Haryana on 20 February, 2024

Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul

Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023330

                        AT CHANDIGARH
                                       Date of decision: February 20, 2024





Present:     Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Ms. Trishanjali Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.


1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case

FIR No.32 dated 17.01.2022 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468

and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (and Sections 201 IPC added during

investigation), registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that in a

magisterial trial, the petitioner has been in custody since 16.03.2022 and only 3

witnesses out of the 13 cited by the prosecution have been examined till date. It

has been further submitted that the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near

future and hence, further incarceration of the petitioner would service no useful


3. Per contra, learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer and

submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, has

informed the Court that the petitioner has criminal antecedents as he is involved

in a number of other criminal cases, which stand reflected in the custody

1 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 22-02-2024 01:48:40 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023330

CRM-M-52311-2023 -2-

certificate, which has been placed on record in the Court today. However, she

has not disputed that after the challan was presented on 01.07.2022 followed by

the framing of charges, only 3 prosecution witnesses had been examined till


4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submitted

that no doubt he is involved in some other criminal cases, however, in those

cases, he had just furnished surety before the learned trial Court qua the

accused in those cases.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material placed on record.

6. The FIR in question, which has been annexed as Annexure-P/1,

came to be registered on 17.01.2022. The relevant portion of the FIR in

question is reproduced hereinbelow: –

“It is brought to your notice that in the above cited case, accused
Frank Joseph was admitted to bail vide order dated 16.07.2021.
However, on 20.08.2021 he absented, therefore, his bail was
cancelled and warrants of arrest were issued against him. The
surety bonds were also cancelled and forfeited to the state and
notices to the sureties and their identifier were issued. Pursuant to
the notice, sureties Pala Ram, Raj Kumar and identifies Jai
Bhagwan appeared before the Court on 11.10.2021, 08.11.2021
and stated that they never appeared as sureties/identifier in this
case. However, the identification documents of the sureties and the
identifier are available on file. It seems that some other persons
have impersonated the sureties and the identifier on the basis of
fake documents. You are, therefore, requested to get the matter
investigated to bring the culprits to the books and submit your
report on or before 28.01.2022 the date fixed in this case.”

2 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 22-02-2024 01:48:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023330

CRM-M-52311-2023 -3-

7. In the aforementioned circumstances and the petitioner facing trial

for offences triable by the Magistrate, further incarceration of the petitioner

would serve no useful purpose as 10 prosecution witnesses still remain to be


8. In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this

Court deems it fit to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly,

the instant petition is allowed; the petitioner be admitted to bail to the

satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

9. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall

not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10. Needless to add here, in case the petitioner is found misusing the

concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to approach this Court to seek

cancellation of bail to him.

February 20, 2024                                (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Jaspreet Kaur                                          JUDGE

                    Whether speaking/reasoned        :      Yes/No
                    Whether reportable               :      Yes/No

                                                            Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023330

                                        3 of 3
                     ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2024 01:48:41 :::


Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *