Skip to content


Shehanshah @bablu Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Shehanshah @bablu

Respondent

State of Haryana

Excerpt:


.....has already been examined as pw2 and perusal of copy of his statement, annexure p1 shows that he has deposed that he had not seen the accused, who was present in the court and that he was not one of those miscreants who had looted him as it was darkness. it is further contended that petitioner is not involved in any other case. this factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent-state. there are no allegations on behalf of the state that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the court, if released on bail. hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, the instant application for regular bail filed on behalf of shehjanshah @bablu is allowed. bail to the satisfaction of cjm/duty magistrate, gurgaon. ( ram chand gupta ) february 11, 2014. judge ‘om’ singh omkar 2014.02.12 17:20 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court, chandigarh

Judgment:


CRM No.M-4020 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.

Misc.

No.M- 4020 of 2014(O&M) Date of Decision: February 11, 2014.

Shehanshah @Bablu .....PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana .....RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Pawan Singh, DAG, Haryana.

***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed for regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no.369 dated 30.10.2012, under Sections 395/397/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at police station DLF Qutub Enclave, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon dismissing bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.

Singh Omkar 2014.02.12 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM No.M-4020 of 2014 2 It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner-accused that he has been continuing in custody since 06.01.2013 and that main witness i.e., complainant of this case, Sunil Bhadana has already been examined as PW2 and perusal of copy of his statement, Annexure P1 shows that he has deposed that he had not seen the accused, who was present in the court and that he was not one of those miscreants who had looted him as it was darkness.

It is further contended that petitioner is not involved in any other case.

This factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent-State.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, the instant application for regular bail filed on behalf of Shehjanshah @Bablu is allowed.

Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Gurgaon.

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) February 11, 2014.

JUDGE ‘om’ Singh Omkar 2014.02.12 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //