CRM-17601-2021 in/and
CRM-M-41582-2020 -1-

104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-17601-2021 in/and
CRM-M-41582-2020
Date of Decision: July 12, 2021

Vicky @ Vikas Dahiya …..Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ……Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present: Mr.Amit Choudhary,Advocate
for the applicant-petitioner.

Mr.B.S.Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
……..

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

Matter has been taken up through video conferencing via

Webex facility in the light of the Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per

instructions.

CRM-17601-2021

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed and CRM-M-41582-2020 is taken up on Board today itself.

CRM-M-41582-2020

praying for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.433, dated

Station Old Faridabad, District Faridabad.

Petitioner before this Court is the husband of deceased-Mannu.

It has been contended that the offence under which the petitioner has been

1 of 2
13-07-2021 02:25:15 :::
CRM-17601-2021 in/and
CRM-M-41582-2020 -2-

implicated is only because he is husband of the deceased otherwise the

allegations are false. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner is

behind bars since 16.12.2019 and examination of the prosecution witnesses

has already commenced. It is further contended that FIR in question was

lodged by father of the deceased, namely, Netrapal, who has been examined

by the trial Court and he did not support the case of prosecution and thus,

was declared hostile. He further argues that this situation would in itself

show that the petitioner is falsely implicated as crucial witness has already

turned hostile. In the circumstances he prays that petitioner may be granted

bail.

Mr.B.S.Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, submits that

the fact regarding arrest of the petitioner is correct and complainant of the

FIR, as contended by counsel for the petitioner, has already been examined

and he did not support the case of prosecution. It is further submitted that

there are in all 27 prosecution witnesses, out of which 4 have been

examined. He opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

In totality of the facts and circumstances, I find that counsel for

the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail to the petitioner. The trial

would take some time for its conclusion and no purpose would be served by

keeping the petitioner behind the bars for further period.

Application is allowed.

Bail to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate

concerned.

July 12, 2021 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
meenuss JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable ? Yes/No

2 of 2
13-07-2021 02:25:15 :::