CRM M-326 418 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Harsh Kumar @ Bogi State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present : HARKESH MANUJA, of BNSS, 2023, petitioner in case bearing FIR No. Sections Fatehabad, District Fatehabad, whereby the petitioner has been implicated with the complainant to run fruit rehri in Hans market alongwith his friend Sandeep. 2. petitioner is in custody for the last to take some time to conclude as out of total 23 prosecution witnesses, only 02 i.e. complainant and eye examined and both of them have turned hostile and, thus he deserves the concession of bail. 3. petitioner has been opposed by learned State counsel to the antecedents of the petitioner of similar nature and thus he does not deserve the concession of bail. 326-2025 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M Date of Decision: Harsh Kumar @ Bogi VERSUS State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present : Mr.Naveen Siwach, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present second of BNSS, 2023, prayer has been made for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. s 364-A, 384, 506, 34, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Fatehabad, District Fatehabad, whereby the petitioner has been implicated with the allegation of demanding Rs.1 lakh for allowing the complainant to run fruit rehri in Hans market alongwith his friend Sandeep. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than to take some time to conclude as out of total 23 prosecution witnesses, only 02 i.e. complainant and eye examined and both of them have turned hostile and, thus he deserves the concession of bail. On the other hand, the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner has been opposed by learned State counsel to the antecedents of the petitioner having of similar nature and thus he does not deserve the concession of bail. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RM M-326-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.01.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent HARKESH MANUJA , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab. second petition filed under Section 483 been made for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.411 dated 31.07.2023 under B IPC, registered at Police Station Fatehabad, District Fatehabad, whereby the petitioner has been allegation of demanding Rs.1 lakh for allowing the complainant to run fruit rehri in Hans market by having abducted him Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the more than 10 months; trial is likely to take some time to conclude as out of total 23 prosecution witnesses, only 02 i.e. complainant and eye-witness have been examined and both of them have turned hostile and, thus he he prayer made on behalf of the petitioner has been opposed by learned State counsel while referring having involved in one more case of similar nature and thus he does not deserve the concession of bail. 483 been made for grant of regular bail to the 411 dated 31.07.2023 under B IPC, registered at Police Station Fatehabad, District Fatehabad, whereby the petitioner has been allegation of demanding Rs.1 lakh for allowing the having abducted him Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ; trial is likely to take some time to conclude as out of total 23 prosecution witness have been examined and both of them have turned hostile and, thus he he prayer made on behalf of the while referring more case of similar nature and thus he does not deserve the concession of bail. SANJAY GUPTA 2025.01.16 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM M-326 4. through the paper book. I find substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. concluded with the and out of 23 prosecution witnesses, only 02 main witnesses i.e. complainant as well as eye PW1 and PW2 and even they have not supported the prosecution version. The petitioner is in custo in such circumstances, c take some time, I do not find any incarceration of the petitioner 6. of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to h bonds/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 7. stand disposed of. 16.01.2025 sanjay 326-2025 (O&M) [2] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I find substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, investigation already stands concluded with the filing of challan, f and out of 23 prosecution witnesses, only 02 main witnesses i.e. complainant as well as eye-witness Sandeep have been examined as PW1 and PW2 and even they have not supported the prosecution version. The petitioner is in custody for the last in such circumstances, considering the fact that the trial is likely to take some time, I do not find any incarceration of the petitioner. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to h surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .01.2025 ( Whether speaking/reasoned ? Whether Reportable ? I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I find substance in the submissions made by In the present case, investigation already stands filing of challan, followed by framing of charges and out of 23 prosecution witnesses, only 02 main witnesses i.e. witness Sandeep have been examined as PW1 and PW2 and even they have not supported the prosecution dy for the last more than 10 months, the fact that the trial is likely to take some time, I do not find any justification to extend the Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial neous application(s), if any, shall also HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No Yes/No I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I find substance in the submissions made by In the present case, investigation already stands ollowed by framing of charges and out of 23 prosecution witnesses, only 02 main witnesses i.e. witness Sandeep have been examined as PW1 and PW2 and even they have not supported the prosecution months, the fact that the trial is likely to justification to extend the the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is furnishing adequate bail surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial neous application(s), if any, shall also SANJAY GUPTA 2025.01.16 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document