VIPIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Main case

(2.) The present is a second petition filed under Sec. 437(6) read with Sec. 439 and Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 352 dtd. 25/6/2016, under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 IPC, registered at Police Station Samalkha, Panipat.

(3.) It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this is a second successive bail petition filed by the petitioner and earlier he had filed CRM-M-4907-2022 which was dismissed by this Court on 14/3/2022. He submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 19/7/2021 which is almost 1 year and 5 months and after the dismissal of the aforesaid first bail petition the trial Court had adjourned the case about 23 times so that the prosecution witnesses can be examined and for a number of times summons were issued but strangely enough no prosecution witness has been examined till date except for the examination of the complainant only. He submitted that the allegations in the present case are that the petitioner had purchased oil from another company and had issued C-Forms for the purpose of Sales Tax Department and the allegations against the petitioner are that the Forms were forged and consequently he was arrested. He further submitted that the entire case is based upon the documents including C-Form regarding which forgery has been alleged. Therefore, the official witnesses who are in possession of the documents and all other relevant material were the material witnesses but there is no justification as to why the prosecution has absented itself and has not come forward for deposing before the trial Court despite the fact that even after the earlier decision of the bail petition the matter has been adjourned 23 times. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner supplied photocopies of the zimini orders passed by the trial Court. Photocopies of the zimini orders are hereby taken on record as marked 'X'. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the successive bail petition filed by the petitioner ismaintainable. He further submitted that it is a case which is otherwise triable by Magistrate and the entire case is based upon the documentary evidence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. He also submitted that after looking at the conduct of the prosecution where they are deliberately not presenting themselves for deposing before the trial Court, the trial of the case may take further long time and the petitioner has already faced incarceration for one year and five months and therefore, he may be considered for grant of regular bail.