Anil and Another Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1047872
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnApr-01-2013
AppellantAnil and Another
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
crm not m-6865 o”1. in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crl. misc. not m- 6865 of 2013(o&m) date of decision: april 1, 2013. anil and another .....petitioner(s) versus state of haryana .....respondent (s) coram:- hon'ble mr.justice ram chand gupta present: mr.aps deol, senior advocate with mr.vishal rattan lamba, advocate, for the petitioners.mrs.maloo chahal, dag, haryana. mr.anurag jain, advocate, for the complainant. ***** 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.932 dated 17.12.2012, under sections 323/325/34/307/506 ipc, registered at police station civil lines, hisar. 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, jhajjar dismissing bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner. crm not m-6865 o”2. it has been contended by learned counsel for petitioners-accused that there names were not mentioned in the fir and that they were named by an eye-witness later on and even as per the statement of said eye-witness, injuries attributed to present petitioners are with blunt weapons i.e.base ball bat and iron rod resulting into injuries on non-vital parts of the body i.e.on legs and hands. it is further submitted that they have been continuing in custody since 19.12.2012 and that investigation already completed, challan filed and however, trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. this factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for the state. however, bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the complainant on the plea that he received multiple fractures on legs and hands and he is not in a position to pursue his routine work. there are no allegations on behalf of the state that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the court, if released on bail. however, taking into consideration the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, i am of the view that petitioners deserve concession of bail. hence, without commenting any opinion on merits of the case, the instant application for regular bail filed on behalf of anil and prince @pannu is allowed. bail to the satisfaction of cjm/duty magistrate, hisar. ( ram chand gupta ) april 1, 2013. judge ‘om’
Judgment:

CRM not M-6865 o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.

Misc.

not M- 6865 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: April 1, 2013.

Anil and another .....PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana .....RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.APS Deol, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vishal Rattan Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.MRS.Maloo Chahal, DAG, Haryana.

Mr.Anurag Jain, Advocate, for the complainant.

***** 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.932 dated 17.12.2012, under Sections 323/325/34/307/506 IPC, registered at police station Civil Lines, Hisar.

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, Jhajjar dismissing bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.

CRM not M-6865 o”

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioners-accused that there names were not mentioned in the FIR and that they were named by an eye-witness later on and even as per the statement of said eye-witness, injuries attributed to present petitioners are with blunt weapons i.e.base ball bat and iron rod resulting into injuries on non-vital parts of the body i.e.on legs and hands.

It is further submitted that they have been continuing in custody since 19.12.2012 and that investigation already completed, challan filed and however, trial is not likely to be concluded in near future.

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

However, bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the complainant on the plea that he received multiple fractures on legs and hands and he is not in a position to pursue his routine work.

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

However, taking into consideration the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that petitioners deserve concession of bail.

Hence, without commenting any opinion on merits of the case, the instant application for regular bail filed on behalf of Anil and Prince @Pannu is allowed.

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

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) April 1, 2013.

JUDGE ‘om’