Judgment:
CRM not M-38564 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM not M-38564 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision:08.02.2013 Jafrudeen @ Jafru .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Sailender Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Sunil Katyal, Sr.Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State.
**** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) Petitioner-Jafrudeen @ Jafru son of Ishak, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of regular bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, by means of FIR No.96 dated 01.06.2012, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Kasola, Distrcit Rewari, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C.2.
Notice of the petition was issued to the State.”
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context.
CRM not M-38564 o”
2. 4.
The prosecution claimed that on 01.06.2012, a Pick Up van came from the side of village Padiawas and the petitioner was its Driver.
The complainant tried to stop the Pick Up van, but the suspected criminals sitting in it, fired shots, which hit in his(complainant) abdomen and right leg of PW Ramdhan son of Mohar Singh.
The only allegations assigned to the petitioner are that he was the Driver of the indicated van.
No other specific role or overt-act is attributed to him.
All the main allegations of firing shots are assigned to other main co-accused of the petitioner(non-petitioners).In that eventuality, whether the provision of Section 34 IPC is attracted to the facts of the present case or not, would be a moot point to be decided during the couRs.of trial by the trial Court.”
5. Be that as it may, the petitioner was arrested on 12.06.2012 and since then he is in judicial custody.
No useful purpose would be served in further detaining him in jail.
There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case.
Even since not a single witness has yet been examined by the prosecution, so, the conclusion of trial would naturally take a long time.”
6. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the couRs.of trial, the instant petition for regular bail is hereby accepted.
The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, CRM not M-38564 o”
3. would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail.
February 08, 2013 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE