Allowed

Suresh and Ors. v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Aug 2009CRM-M/17594/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for bail by two accused armed with a pistol and a Gandasi in an assault case. Court examined weapon possession versus actual injury causation. Directed release of both petitioners on bail conditionally, reserving issues regarding specific injury attribution for trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Suresh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl.Misc.No.M-17594 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 24 .08.2009

¶3

Suresh and another ....Petitioner(s)

¶4

vs.

¶5

State of Haryana ....Respondent(s)

¶6

¶7

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶8

¶9

Present:Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Deepinder Brar, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr.Yash Pal Malik, AAG, Haryana.

¶11

¶12

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

¶13

The present petition is for grant of regular bail.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the FIR, as a whole is taken to be a gospel truth, then also the allegation against petitioner No.1 Suresh is that he was armed with a pistol. He contends that there is no role/motive attributed to him either in the form of a threat or having used the fire arm. He submits that although another person is also alleged to have been carrying a licensed pistol on his shoulder, namely, Rajbir, but in the whole incident, no fire-arm has been used. As regards petitioner No.2, Rajesh, counsel for the petitioner contends that he is alleged to have been armed with a Gandasi. His contention is that no injury has been attributed to him and even if considering the assertion made by the counsel for the State, the injury with the Gandasi as per the statement of the injured is on the head of the injured. Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submits that there is no co-relationship between the injury which is now

¶15

Crl.Misc.No.M-17594 of 2009

¶16

-2-

¶17

being foisted upon the petitioners being injury No.6 which according to the prosecution has led to the amputation of the leg of the injured and when there is no statement co-relating the injury of petitioner No.2-Rajesh with the fracture of the right leg which led to the amputation of the said leg, the benefit of doubt should be given to the petitioners. He further contends that the petitioners are in custody since 1.1.2009 and the trial has not proceeded since then as one of the co-accused has been arrested on 19.8.2009 and challan against him has not been presented as yet and, therefore, the trial is not likely to conclude soon. He further contends that as far as the petitioners are concerned, the investigation is complete and the challan stands presented against them and keeping them in further custody would not be of any use. On this basis, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioners.

¶18

On the other hand, counsel for the State and the complainant admit that there has been no use of firm arm in the incident, however, counsel for the complainant presses that because of petitioner No.1 being armed with a pistol which was an impediment for the other people to comeforward and help the injured, especially when it was planned in such a manner to cause injuries to the victim Sukhbir Singh, petitioner No.1 should not be released on bail. As regards petitioner No.2, counsel for the complainant presses that injury No.6 was the injury which was caused with the Gandasi , which according to the FIR, was being carried by Rajeshpetitioner No.2. He contends that the injury which has been caused by Rajesh-petitioner No.2 has led to the amputation of the leg of the injured and, therefore, he should also not be granted bail. Counsel for the State also supports the contention which has been raised by the counsel for the

¶19

Crl.Misc.No.M-17594 of 2009

¶20

-3-

¶21

complainant. It has further been informed that the next date of hearing before the trial Court is 9.10.2009.

¶22

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. As far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, he is only alleged to be armed with a pistol but since there is no use of fire arm in the incident and petitioner No.1 being in custody since 1.1.2009 and the investigation being complete qua him, no useful purpose would be served by further keeping him in custody and, therefore, he (petitioner No.1) is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶23

As far as petitioner No.2-Rajesh is concerned, he is stated to be armed with a Gandasi and as per the statement of the counsel for the State, the injured had stated that the injury which has been caused to him was on his head while counsel for the complainant presses that injury No.6 has been caused by a Gandasi. In this view of the matter, the assertions as put-forth by the respective parties would be looked into and decided at the stage of trial when the evidence is led by the prosecution in support thereof. Petitioner No.2 also is in custody since 1.1.2009 and qua him also, the investigation is complete. Therefore, he is also directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶24

Petition stands disposed of.

¶25

August 24, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE

Suresh and Ors. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh and Ors. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Thakur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Virinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Sudha Sachdeva & Anr. Vs M/S Task Bpo

Rupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Another

Mahipal @ Kale Vs State of Haryana

Gurwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.