ABHISHEK @ BINNI Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought regular bail in FIR No.RCCHG5121650014 (Annexure P-1) dated 06.10.2016, under Sections 120-B, 148, 149, 186, 188, 307, 353, 395, 427, 436 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, besides Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, registered at Police Station CBI, SCB, Chandigarh, earlier registered as FIR No.118 dated 27.02.2016 (Annexure P-2) at Police Station Urban Estate Rohtak.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations in the FIR are that the petitioner along with other accused during the Jat agitation had attacked the residence and other establishments of the complainant. They are alleged to have indulged in arson and the buildings were set ablaze. Similarly situated co-accused have been released on bail by various orders, copies whereof are at Annexures P-4 and P-5. He also contends that no person was injured in the occurrence. No other criminal case is pending against the petiitoner. He also states that the conclusion of the trial in the instant case is likely to take a long time as charges have not yet been framed while 137 witnesses have been cited in the challan. The petitioner is in custody for over 3 years and 9 months since his arrest on 01.03.2016.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for CBI contends that the petitioner was an active participant and one of the main conspirators who had incited the mob which had set ablaze several establishments including the residence of the complainant. Merely because the petitioner is in custody for a long time, would not entitle him to the benefit of bail. He also contends that the petitioner's participation in the crime was prima facie established through CCTV footage, his mobile location and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has relied upon the judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of State through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi reported as 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 280, Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported as 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 252, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav reported as 2004 (2) RCR (Criminal) 254, Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported as 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 903 and Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi and Anr. reported as 2018 (1) RCR (Criminal) 90 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Lakshya @ Pappu Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation in CRM-M-39567-2017 decided on 04.12.2017. He also states that in case the petitioner is granted bail there is every likelihood of his influencing the witnesses. One of the co-accused namely Pardeep who has been granted bail by the trial Court had absconded and has been declared as'proclaimed offender'.