The petitioner sought bail alleging unjust implication in a snatching case with firearm involvement, noting a civil dispute and absence of Arms Act charges. The High Court, noting the trial would not conclude soon with 13 prosecution witnesses, allowed the bail petition.
Petitioner directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-17071 of 2009
Date of decision: 10.08.2009
Aarif
..... PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present : Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Yash Pal Malik, AAG, Haryana.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is in custody since 20.01.2009. He further contends that the allegations, as per the FIR, are that the petitioner along with one Muslim tried to snatch away the motorcycle of the complainant and Muslim had fired from his pistol on the complainant, which touched his neck. Counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the charge framed on 8.6.2009, the petitioner has not been charged under the Arms Act. The pistol was also not recovered from the petitioner but has been recovered from Muslim. He further states that there is a civil dispute pending between the parties and, therefore, the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in the present case by the complainant.
Counsel for the State contends that the charge having already been framed against the accused and the case is now fixed for
Crl. Misc. No. M-17071 of 2009
-2-
15.09.2009 for recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the petitioner having been involved in an offence, although the gun had not been used by him but the co-accused had done so, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
The allegations, which have been made against the petitioner, are primarily of trying to snatch the motorcycle from the complainant. It is an admitted position that the pistol, which is alleged to have been used by the petitioner, is not recovered from the petitioner nor he used the same. The petitioner is in custody since 20.01.2009 and now the case is fixed for 15.09.2009 for prosecution witnesses.
Counsel for the State has informed that there are 13 prosecution witnesses which are to be examined as have been cited by the prosecution before the trial Court. That being so, the trial is not likely to conclude soon and, therefore, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE
August 10, 2009 pj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the pendency of prosecution witnesses examination and lack of charge under the Arms Act.
Aarif
State of Haryana
Augustine George Masih
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
