MOHAMMAD ANAS @ RASHID Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this instant petition filed Section 482 Cr. P.C, the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders dated 6.7.2020, 14.07.2020 and 17.07.2020 as passed by the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate whereby he has released the petitioner on regular bail and imposed a condition of furnishing bail bond and also the surety bond of Rs.50,000/- in each case of the 21 cases, as too onerous and impossible for petitioner to satisfy.

(2.) In brief the facts as stated by the petitioner are that he was falsely implicated by the Police in as many as 34 cases under Section 136 of Electricity Act. In FIR No.623 dated 24.12.2018 registered at PS Thanesar Sadar Kurukshetra written information was received from one Mahinder Singh son of Dalel Singh that 20 KVA transformer has been stolen in the midnight of 09.11.2018. On inspection by Ram Rattan, JE, a report was prepared and he calculated the loss of about Rs.73,000/- and thereafter on complaint of SDO OP Division UHBVN Pipli a FIR was registered against unknown person. The petitioner was then arrayed as an accused in 34 similar cases and arrested.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the FIR was against an unknown person and he has been falsely implicated in the FIR without evidence, and that he is in fact a petty labourer doing work in Delhi for the past several years. In fact false evidence has been planted upon him. It is argued that for the lack of finding the real accused, he has been made the scapegoat and been nominated as an accused in 34 cases under Section 136 of the electricity Act, out of which he has been acquitted in 13 cases. It is argued that he has been arrested and is behind bars since 15 th of January 2019 due to false implication by the police. It is argued that he has been granted bail in all the 21 cases pending against him, however, the court has directed the petitioner to furnish bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount in every case and the petitioner being a labourer is not in a position to arrange 21 sureties for furnishing the bail bonds. It is prayed that a single surety and a single bail bond be accepted in all the 21 FIRs which are pending against him. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon judgements as rendered in CRM-M-4651 of 2019 titled as 'Suresh Kumar Walia versus State of Haryana' wherein bail/surety bonds to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh was treated as surety in all the 96 other FIRs pending against the said petitioner. He also relies upon a similar case in CRM-M-2472 of 2020 titled as 'Surender Kumar versus State of Haryana' wherein the surety bonds in one case was to be treated as a surety bond in 31 identical cases pending against the petitioner.