Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1069378
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-17-2013
AppellantRavi Kumar
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
crm not m-12549 o”1. in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh 1 crl. misc. not m- 12549 of 2013(o&m) date of decision: may 17, 2013. ravi kumar .....petitioner(s) versus state of haryana .....respondent (s) 2. crl. misc. not m- 13544 of 2013(o&m).siku .....petitioner(s) versus state of haryana .....respondent (s) coram:- hon'ble mr.justice ram chand gupta present: mr.deepak sabherwal, advocate, for the petitioners.mrs.maloo chahal, dag, haryana. ***** ram chand gupta, j.(oral) this order will dispose of both the aforementioned petitions filed for regular bail under section 439 of code of criminal procedure in fir no.446 dated 01.12.2011, under sections 365/302/202/177/34 ipc and crm not m-12549 o”2. section 25 of the arms act, 1959, registered at police station sadar, rohtak. 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, rohtak dismissing bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners.it has been contended by learned counsel for petitioners-accused that petitioner-accused, ravi kumar has been continuing in custody since 02.12.2011 and petitioner-accused, siku has been continuing in custody since 01.12.2011. it is further contended that material witnesses have been examined and that they have not supported the prosecution version. it is further submitted that there is no other legally admissible evidence against petitioners-accused. this factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for the state, on instruction from si darshan singh, 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. hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, both the applications for regular bail filed on behalf of ravi kumar and siku are allowed. bail to the satisfaction of cjm/duty magistrate, rohtak. ( ram chand gupta ) may 17, 2013. judge ‘om’
Judgment:

CRM not M-12549 o”

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

Crl.

Misc.

not M- 12549 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: May 17, 2013.

Ravi Kumar .....PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana .....RESPONDENT (s) 2.

Crl.

Misc.

not M- 13544 of 2013(O&M).Siku .....PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana .....RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.MRS.Maloo Chahal, DAG, Haryana.

***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) This order will dispose of both the aforementioned petitions filed for regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no.446 dated 01.12.2011, under Sections 365/302/202/177/34 IPC and CRM not M-12549 o”

2. Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at police station Sadar, Rohtak.

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, Rohtak dismissing bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioneRs.It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioners-accused that petitioner-accused, Ravi Kumar has been continuing in custody since 02.12.2011 and petitioner-accused, Siku has been continuing in custody since 01.12.2011.

It is further contended that material witnesses have been examined and that they have not supported the prosecution version.

It is further submitted that there is no other legally admissible evidence against petitioners-accused.

This factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for the State, on instruction from SI Darshan Singh, 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.

Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, both the applications for regular bail filed on behalf of Ravi Kumar and Siku are allowed.

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

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) May 17, 2013.

JUDGE ‘om’