The High Court allowed a bail petition, noting inconsistencies between prosecution damage reports and medical documentation regarding the cause and nature of the alleged deceased's injuries.
Petition allowed; bail granted to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.
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-24686 of 2009
Date of Decision: November 12, 2009
Sukhender
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana.
…Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND
Present: Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mrs. Neena Madan, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
S.D. Anand, J. (Oral)
The essential foundational premise of the prosecution allegation that Jai Chand died on account of head injury given to him by the petitioner is falsified by the medical documentation which only indicates three injures – one on left shoulder and two on the elbow. The medical officer, who conducted the post mortem examination, had already been examined as PW9 and his opinion is also not in accord with the presentation made by the investigating agency.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the petition shall stand allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
November 12, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, whose medical evidence suggests inconsistent prosecution claims of injury, is entitled to bail.
Sukhender
State of Haryana
S. D. Anand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
