DILAWAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the rival parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the CBI who raised preliminary objections that on 06.10.2016 itself, notification has been issued for handing over the investigation in the case in question, to CBI arising out of FIR No.118 dated 27.02.2016, under Sections 148, 149, 186, 188, 124-A, 353, 450, 427, 436, 307, 395, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 25 of Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3-4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, registration at Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak, District Rohtak and CBI has registered RC No.14 of 2016. The notified CBI Court is Special Judge, CBI for Haryana at Panchkula. According to him, in view of subsequent development, this petition is not maintainable as the regular bail petition will have to be filed first before the Special Judge, CBI, Panchkula and not directly before this Court.

(3.) The objections have been answered by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the CBI may take its own time in investigation etc. and therefore, the liberty of the petitioner cannot be undermined in the manner sought by the CBI and the Haryana Police. On merits, he submits that there is no offence against the petitioner nor any recovery has been made from him and as such, he ought to be released on bail who is in Jail since Feb. 2016. His detention is not necessary at all and hence, prayed for grant of bail.