In a regular bail petition under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B/109 IPC, the High Court granted bail to the petitioner, holding that no useful purpose would be served by continued custody and escape chances are remote, though not adverted to the merits.
Bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra.
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-4241 of 2009 Date of decision : 01.04.2009
Naresh Kumar
....Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana
....Respondent.
BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kartar Singh, AAG Haryana for the respondent-State.
Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the complainant.
RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)
This is a petition for grant of regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B/109 IPC vide FIR No. 436 dated 11.12.2008 at police station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the alleged transaction, the petitioner only acted as property dealer and received Rs. 1.00 lac as his commission. According to the counsel, out of said amount, Rs. 67,000/- was recovered by the police. Counsel further submits that offences alleged in the FIR are triable by the Magistrate and petitioner is in custody since 07.01.2009.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail on the ground that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. However, it is not disputed that a sum of Rs. 67,000/- has already been
Crl. Misc No. M-4241 of 2009
-2-
recovered by the Police from the petitioner.
Without adverting to the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail pending trial. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody during the pendency of trial. This apart, petitioner being a local resident, chances of his escape from the process of law are remote.
Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra.
01.04.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail pending trial given the seriousness of the allegations and the recovery of the alleged amount.
Whether keeping the petitioner in custody serves any useful purpose during the pendency of the trial.
Naresh Kumar
State of Haryana
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
