2021 (9) TMI 1455 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of regular bail - only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the co-accused have been released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge Panipat - HELD THAT - A perusal of the order dated 12.03.2021 reveals that the argument of the co-accused being granted bail was also raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in CRM-M-298-2021 and the same did not find favour of this Court for granting bail to the present petitioner. The order passed by this Court was challenged in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3887 of 2021 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.05.2021. No change in circumstances since the dismissal of the second petition for grant of regular bail vide order dated 12.03.2021 has been pointed out and canvassed. This is not a fit case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly the present petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a case involving Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the dismissal of the third petition for regular bail filed by the petitioner in a case registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Panipat City, Panipat (Haryana). The first two petitions for bail were also dismissed earlier. The argument raised by the petitioner's counsel regarding the release of co-accused on bail was considered but did not sway the court's decision. The State counsel opposed the bail citing that none of the nineteen prosecution witnesses have been examined yet. The court noted that there were no significant changes in circumstances since the dismissal of the second petition, and thus, found no grounds to grant bail to the petitioner.

The judgment highlights the previous orders of the court, emphasizing that the argument regarding co-accused being granted bail had already been considered and rejected in the earlier petition. The court reiterated that the reasons for denying bail in the previous order still applied, and no new circumstances were presented to warrant a different decision. The judge, relying on the detailed order from the previous petition, concluded that the current situation did not merit granting regular bail to the petitioner. The judgment concludes by clarifying that the decision should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, maintaining a neutral stance on the underlying allegations and evidence.