Abid Vs State of Haryana - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of section 173 further provides that where upon further investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall also forward to the magistrate a further report regarding such evidence and the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 173, cr.p.c., shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). thus, the report under sub-section (2) of section 173 after the initial investigation as well as the further report under sub-section (8) of section 173 after further investigation constitute "police report" and have to be forwarded to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. r.p. kapur moved the punjab high court under section 561-a of the code of criminal procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the first information report. .....that even at the time of disposal of crm-m-6167 of 2011 (o&m;), bail application of faisal by this court vide order dated 17.2.2011, same arguments were advanced by learned state counsel that entire evidence would be concluded on 15.2.2011, however, it was not done. learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that despite of several dates fixed thereafter, prosecution has failed to conclude the evidence co-ordinate bench of this court has granted bail to co- accused faisal vide order dated 17.2.2011 on the ground that prosecution has failed to conclude the evidence. considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is allowed. let petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

Judgment:

1. Present petition is filed seeking regular bail in case FIR No.246 dated 26.7.2009 under Sections 392/397 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act (Sections 395/412 IPC and Sections 54 and 59 Arms Act added subsequently), Police Station Kundli, District Sonepat. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has been in custody since 3.8.2009.

2. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, has stated that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined except the one witness i.e owner of the vehicle, who can be examined at any time, therefore, this is not the stage to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while taking me to Annexure P-6 page 31 has argued that even at the time of disposal of CRM-M-6167 of 2011 (O&M;), bail application of Faisal by this Court vide order dated 17.2.2011, same arguments were advanced by learned State counsel that entire evidence would be concluded on 15.2.2011, however, it was not done. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that despite of several dates fixed thereafter, prosecution has failed to conclude the evidence Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail to co- accused Faisal vide order dated 17.2.2011 on the ground that prosecution has failed to conclude the evidence. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is allowed. Let petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.