Present: Mr. N.S.Shekhawat Advocate Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1143112
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJun-04-2014
AppellantPresent: Mr. N.S.Shekhawat Advocate
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
crm no.m-17573 of 2014 [1].in the high court of punjab and haryanaat chandigarh crm no.m- 17573 of 2014(o&m) date of decision: june 4, 2014. fazru and another .....petitioner (s) versus state of haryana .....respondent (s) coram:- hon'ble mrs.justice lisa gill present: mr.n.s.shekhawat, advocate for the petitioners.mr.g.s.sandhu, aag, haryana. ***** lisa gill, j.(oral) it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that 16 persons had been named in the fir and out of them, six were found innocent during investigation. the present petitioners were not arrested till december, 2013 even though they were residing in the village during the said period because there was no evidence against them. it is further contended that five of the other co-accused, who are similarly situated, have been granted the concession of regular bail by the additional sessions judge, palwal vide order dated 07.12.2013. reliance is also placed on the doctor's opinion that deceased islamuddin @islam had died due to ischaemic heart disease. specific reference is made to the answer to question no.3 specifically put to the medical board (annexure p6).singh omkar 2014.06.05 14:58 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm no.m-17573 of 2014 [2].the learned state counsel is unable to deny that the role attributed to the petitioners is identical to the other co-accused, who have been granted bail vide the abovesaid order dated 07.12.2013. it is, however, contended that the ischaemic heart disease could have been brought on by the head injury. having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the documents on record, it is apparent that the present petitioners have not been attributed any of the four injuries, which are reflected on the person of deceased -islamuddin @islam. the contention of the learned state counsel that the other co-accused, who have been granted the concession of bail had undergone imprisonment for a period of about eight months and in the present case the petitioners have not undergone the said period, is liable to be rejected on the face of it. for the reasons aforesaid, the present petition filed by fazru and jamil for regular bail is allowed. the petitioners are granted bail pending trial on their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court/duty magistrate, palwal. it is, however, clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove shall be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall have no bearing on the trial. petition stands allowed as aforesaid. ( lisa gill ) june 4, 2014. judge ‘om’ singh omkar 2014.06.05 14:58 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

CRM No.M-17573 of 2014 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M- 17573 of 2014(O&M) Date of Decision: June 4, 2014.

Fazru and another .....PETITIONER (s) Versus State of Haryana .....RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL Present: Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.G.S.Sandhu, AAG, Haryana.

***** LISA GILL, J.(Oral) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that 16 persons had been named in the FIR and out of them, six were found innocent during investigation.

The present petitioners were not arrested till December, 2013 even though they were residing in the village during the said period because there was no evidence against them.

It is further contended that five of the other co-accused, who are similarly situated, have been granted the concession of regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal vide order dated 07.12.2013.

Reliance is also placed on the Doctor's opinion that deceased Islamuddin @Islam had died due to Ischaemic Heart Disease.

Specific reference is made to the answer to question No.3 specifically put to the Medical Board (Annexure P6).Singh Omkar 2014.06.05 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-17573 of 2014 [2].The learned State counsel is unable to deny that the role attributed to the petitioners is identical to the other co-accused, who have been granted bail vide the abovesaid order dated 07.12.2013.

It is, however, contended that the Ischaemic Heart Disease could have been brought on by the head injury.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the documents on record, it is apparent that the present petitioners have not been attributed any of the four injuries, which are reflected on the person of deceased -Islamuddin @Islam.

The contention of the learned State counsel that the other co-accused, who have been granted the concession of bail had undergone imprisonment for a period of about eight months and in the present case the petitioners have not undergone the said period, is liable to be rejected on the face of it.

For the reasons aforesaid, the present petition filed by Fazru and Jamil for regular bail is allowed.

The petitioners are granted bail pending trial on their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, Palwal.

It is, however, clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove shall be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall have no bearing on the trial.

Petition stands allowed as aforesaid.

( LISA GILL ) June 4, 2014.

JUDGE ‘om’ Singh Omkar 2014.06.05 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh