In a criminal miscellaneous petition for bail under Section 437/439 CrPC in a murder case (IPC 302), the High Court denied bail. The court noted the petitioner instigated violence over a dispute regarding a mobile recharge card and participated in the murder, stating that the petitioner did not deserve bail.
Bail application was dismissed.
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 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-21633 of 2009 Date of decision : November 17, 2009
Ayub
....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. Bijender Dhankhar, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana with Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate, for the complainant
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Ayub has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 22 dated 20.2.2008 under sections 302, 323, 148, 149 IPC and section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Nagina, District Mewat.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file.
According to the prosecution version, the petitioner had purchased recharge card for his mobile phone from the complainant on 18.2.2008 and said that he would pay for the same after returning from another village. In the evening when the complainant asked for the money, the petitioner slapped the complainant. Next day, the petitioner and his coaccused attacked the complainant's brother and murdered him. The petitioner also inflicted lathi blow to the deceased.
Criminal Misc. No. M-21633 of 2009
-2-
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that only lathi blow is attributed to the petitioner but the attack was opened by the petitioner's co-accused Aayin Khan. However, without commenting anything on merits, it has to be noticed that the petitioner purchased recharge card from the complainant and did not pay for the same and when the complainant demanded the money, the petitioner slapped him. On next day, the petitioner along with others attacked the complainant's brother and murdered him. Injuries were also caused to the complainant and his wife.
In view of the aforesaid but without commenting anything on
merits, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.
Dismissed.
( L.N. Mittal ) November 17, 2009 Judge ' dalbir'
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner deserves bail in a case involving murder and unlawful assembly.
Whether the petitioner's role in slapping the complainant and being present at the subsequent murder warrants bail.
Whether the malafide intent and circumstances of the case are sufficient to deny bail.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Ayub
State of Haryana
L.N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
