Mohd. Jafar Vs. State of Haryana

Mohd. Jafar vs State of Haryana

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Aug 14, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1161537

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1161537
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Aug 14, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohd. Jafar

Respondent

State of Haryana

Excerpt

.....the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. in the event of his arrest, the arresting officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of rs. 25,000/- to his satisfaction.”. 5. at the very outset, on instructions from si bir singh, learned state counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. he is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. there is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. moreover, the offence alleged against the accused is triable by the court of magistrate. even, since kumar sumit201408.14 15:49 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crm-m no.25805 of 2014 -3- the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.6. in the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of 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 course of trial of main case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. the interim bail already granted to the petitioner, by virtue of indicated order by this court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under section 438(2) cr.p.c.7. needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, 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 pre-arrest bail. at the same time, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this court. 14.08.2014 (mehinder singh sullar) sumit.k judge.....

Full Judgment

CRM-M No.25805 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.25805 of 2014 Date of decision :

14. 08.2014 Mohd. Jafar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajat Mor, DAG, Haryana for the State. **** Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.

(Oral) Petitioner has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him, vide FIR No.262 dated 31.10.2013, on accusation of having committed an offence punishable under Section 379 IPC, by the police of Police Station Rajendra Park, Gurgaon.

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 deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context. KUMAR SUMIT201408.14 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.25805 of 2014 -2- 4. During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on August, 01, 2014:- “Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that initially the present case was registered in the wake of information given by complainant Jaibir-member panchayat to the police, against some unknown persons, with regard to the theft of iron sarai. The matter was investigated and ultimately the police submitted the untraced report on 14.03.2014. Neither his name is mentioned nor any particular role is attributed to the petitioner in the FIR. Subsequently, he was involved in the instant case, in pursuance of disclosure statement of co-accused Manoj Kumar, owner of the vehicle in question. The argument is that, main accused Rihan and Minaj, have already been arrested, interrogated and were granted the regular bail, by means of order dated 22.04.2014 and 23.04.2014 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) respectively, by the trial Court. Heard. Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 14.08.2014. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of his arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to his satisfaction.”. 5. At the very outset, on instructions from SI Bir Singh, learned State counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. Moreover, the offence alleged against the accused is triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since KUMAR SUMIT201408.14 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.25805 of 2014 -3- the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

6. In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of 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 course of trial of main case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner, by virtue of indicated order by this Court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

7. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, 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 pre-arrest bail. At the same time, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this Court. 14.08.2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) sumit.k Judge KUMAR SUMIT201408.14 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2014 Same Parties Mohd. Jafar vs State of Haryana Same Subject Land Acquisition