Crm No.M-17351 of 2014 Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1154920
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-08-2014
AppellantCrm No.M-17351 of 2014
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
crm no.m-17351 of 2014 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm no.m-17351 of 2014 date of decision:- 08.07.2014 bimla and another .....petitioners versus state of haryana .....respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice mehinder singh sullar present: mr.surinder dagar, advocate, for the petitioners.mr.rajat mor, deputy advocate general, haryana for the respondent-state. **** mehinder singh sullar , j.(oral) petitioners-bimla wife of arjun and her minor son hemant, have directed the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against them along with their other co-accused, vide fir no.107 dated 24.02.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323 and 307 read with section 34 ipc and section 25 of the arms act, by the police of police station palwal. 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 considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context. kumar naresh 2014.07.10 10:05 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm no.m-17351 of 2014 -2- 4. during the cours.of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this court on may 22, 2014 :- “learned counsel, inter alia, contended that petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant-daya chand in this case on account of previous enmity. in fact, it is a case of version and cross version, in which, the members of petitioner's party has also received multiple injuries including grievous injuries. consequently, a criminal case was registered against the complainant and his other co-accused vide fir no.111 dated 25.02.2014 (annexure p-2) for commission of offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 506 and 326 ipc. the argument is that the complainant has fabricated the injury and the medical board of doctors opined vide opinion dated 25.03.2014 that the alleged injury on the person of complainant is not possible by fire arm as claimed by him and it was declared simple in nature. therefore, no indicated offences are made out against the petitioner. moreover, the controvers.involved in the instant petition is to be identical to the one raised and decided, by way of order dated 16.05.2014 in crm-m no.13993 of 2014 (annexure p-7).by this court. heard. notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 08.07.2014. meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. in the event of their arrest, the arresting officer would admit them to bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of rs.25,000/- to his satisfaction.”. 5. at the very outset, on instructions from hc harpal singh, learned state counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. they are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. there is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. even, since 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. kumar naresh 2014.07.10 10:05 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm no.m-17351 of 2014 -3- 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, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. the interim bail already granted to the petitioners.by virtue of order dated 22.05.2014, by this court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under section 438(2) cr.p.c.needless to mention that, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this court. july 08, 2014 (mehinder singh sullar) naresh.k judge kumar naresh 2014.07.10 10:05 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

CRM No.M-17351 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-17351 of 2014 Date of Decision:- 08.07.2014 Bimla and another .....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Surinder Dagar, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Rajat Mor, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

**** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) Petitioners-Bimla wife of Arjun and her minor son Hemant, have directed the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against them along with their other co-accused, vide FIR No.107 dated 24.02.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 25 of The Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Palwal.

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 considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

Kumar Naresh 2014.07.10 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-17351 of 2014 -2- 4.

During the couRs.of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on May 22, 2014 :- “Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant-Daya Chand in this case on account of previous enmity.

In fact, it is a case of version and cross version, in which, the members of petitioner's party has also received multiple injuries including grievous injuries.

Consequently, a criminal case was registered against the complainant and his other co-accused vide FIR No.111 dated 25.02.2014 (Annexure P-2) for commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 506 and 326 IPC.

The argument is that the complainant has fabricated the injury and the medical board of doctors opined vide opinion dated 25.03.2014 that the alleged injury on the person of complainant is not possible by fire arm as claimed by him and it was declared simple in nature.

Therefore, no indicated offences are made out against the petitioner.

Moreover, the controveRs.involved in the instant petition is to be identical to the one raised and decided, by way of order dated 16.05.2014 in CRM-M No.13993 of 2014 (Annexure P-7).by this Court.

Heard.

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 08.07.2014.

Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing.

In the event of their arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit them to bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to his satisfaction.”

.

5.

At the very outset, on instructions from HC Harpal Singh, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation.

They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage.

There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case.

Even, since 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.

Kumar Naresh 2014.07.10 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-17351 of 2014 -3- 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, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted.

The interim bail already granted to the petitioneRs.by virtue of order dated 22.05.2014, by this Court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this Court.

July 08, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE Kumar Naresh 2014.07.10 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh