Umesh Kumar Advocate Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1162784
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnAug-21-2014
AppellantUmesh Kumar Advocate
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
crm no.m-26110 of 2014 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh criminal misc.no.m-26110 of 2014 date of decision:-21.8.2014 umesh kumar advocate ...petitioner versus state of haryana ...respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice mehinder singh sullar present:- mr.r.k.bansal, advocate for the petitioner. mr.rajat mor, dag haryana for the state. mehinder singh sullar, j.(oral) petitioner umesh kumar, advocate son of heera lal, has preferred the instant petition, for the grant of regular bail, in a case registered against him along with his other main co-accused, namely, kaptan, vijay, sunil and pardeep etc., vide fir no.46 dated 17.2.2014 (annexure p5), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 307, 392, 397, 216-a, 120-b and 412 ipc and section 25 of the arms act by the police of police station badhra, district bhiwani.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 help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this respect. arvind sharma201408.22 11:53 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm no.m-26110 of 2014 2 4. precisely, the prosecution, inter-alia, claimed that on 17.2.2014, main accused have snatched the bag of complainant rajender singh son of dharampal singh, containing rs.25 lacs. all the main allegations of committing the offences are assigned to the indicated main accused. neither his name is mentioned nor any particular role is attributed to petitioner in the fir. subsequently, he was involved in this case, in the wake of disclosure statements of his co-accused kaptan and vijay, mainly with the allegation that he has received his legal/counsel/fees in some other case (annexure p1) from the accused, out of the looted money. therefore, in that eventuality, as to whether the offences in question are made out against the petitioner or not, inter alia, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial court.5. moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 7.7.2014. since then he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. he is an advocate by profession and there is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. even since the charges have not yet been framed against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.6. in the light of aforesaid reasons, 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, the instant petition for regular bail is hereby accepted. the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.7. needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, arvind sharma201408.22 11:53 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm no.m-26110 of 2014 3 would reflect, in any manner, on merits in the trial of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail only. 21.8.2014 (mehinder singh sullar) as judge arvind sharma201408.22 11:53 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

CRM No.M-26110 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No.M-26110 of 2014 Date of Decision:-21.8.2014 Umesh Kumar Advocate ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.R.K.Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Rajat Mor, DAG Haryana for the State. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.

(Oral) Petitioner Umesh Kumar, Advocate son of Heera Lal, has preferred the instant petition, for the grant of regular bail, in a case registered against him along with his other main co-accused, namely, Kaptan, Vijay, Sunil and Pardeep etc., vide FIR No.46 dated 17.2.2014 (Annexure P5), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 392, 397, 216-A, 120-B and 412 IPC and Section 25 of The Arms Act by the police of Police Station Badhra, District Bhiwani.

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 help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this respect. ARVIND SHARMA201408.22 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-26110 of 2014 2 4. Precisely, the prosecution, inter-alia, claimed that on 17.2.2014, main accused have snatched the bag of complainant Rajender Singh son of Dharampal Singh, containing Rs.25 lacs. All the main allegations of committing the offences are assigned to the indicated main accused. Neither his name is mentioned nor any particular role is attributed to petitioner in the FIR. Subsequently, he was involved in this case, in the wake of disclosure statements of his co-accused Kaptan and Vijay, mainly with the allegation that he has received his legal/counsel/fees in some other case (Annexure P1) from the accused, out of the looted money. Therefore, in that eventuality, as to whether the offences in question are made out against the petitioner or not, inter alia, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court.

5. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 7.7.2014. Since then he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. He is an Advocate by profession and there is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. Even since the charges have not yet been framed against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

6. In the light of aforesaid reasons, 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, the instant petition for regular bail is hereby accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

7. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, ARVIND SHARMA201408.22 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-26110 of 2014 3 would reflect, in any manner, on merits in the trial of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail only. 21.8.2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) AS JUDGE ARVIND SHARMA201408.22 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh