MANISH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Sec. 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant regular bail in case FIR No.578 dtd. 29/9/2021 registered under Ss. 342, 394, 397, 307, 34, 120-B of IPC and Ss. 25, 25(I)(A), 54, 59 of Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Mujesar, District Faridabad.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor any specific role has been attributed to him. As per case of the prosecution, Vipul was arrested on 4/10/2021 and during the course of investigation, he had named the present petitioner as one of the accused. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 13/10/2021 and is in custody for the last more than 02 years and 5 months. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner was also involved in one more case i.e. FIR No.765 dtd. 1/10/2021, registered under Ss. 302, 120-B, 307, 109 of IPC, at Police Station Kotwali Haridwar, District Haridwar, however, vide order dtd. 22/3/2023 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner has already been granted the concession of bail in the said case by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. He further contends that co-accused, Vipul has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court, vide order dtd. 27/4/2022 passed in CRM-M-16587-2022 (Annexure P-2) and the case of the petitioner is on better footing than him.

(3.) On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that one more case under Sec. 302 IPC has been registered against the present petitioner for attacking at police party. However, she admits that the petitioner is on bail in the said case.