Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 818 (PNJ)

Vijender Kumar v. State of Haryana

2021-04-08

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

body2021
Judgment Mr. Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral):- The present petition has been filed under Section 439 CrPC for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.88 dated 12.06.2020, under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D and 201 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that no recovery of the counterfeit currency has been done from the petitioner and the challan has already been presented, meaning thereby, the investigation is over and the trial is likely to take some time before the same is concluded, hence, the petitioner be granted the benefit of regular bail. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, who has joined the proceedings through video conference, keeping in view the service of advance copy of petition, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. 5. Learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Jatinder, has very fairly conceded that as per the record, no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and the challan has already been presented. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 7. Once, no recovery was done from the petitioner, the challan has already been presented and the allegations alleged in the FIR are yet to be proved during the trial and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the petitioner behind the bars during the trial. 8. In view of the above facts, the petitioner be released on regular bail in this case subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that petitioner will not influence the trial in any manner and in case of default of the above undertaking, the State/complainant will be at liberty to approach this Court for passing appropriate orders. 10. However, it is made clear that anything observed herein shall not be construed to be an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.