The High Court dismissed a bail petition where the petitioner was alleged to have caused death in an unlawful assembly. The court denied bail due to conjoined liability in an unlawful assembly case without elaborating on facts but directed the trial court to expedite proceedings.
Bail petition dismissed without expression of opinion on facts.
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.
Cr.Misc. NO. M 4341 of 2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Cr.Misc. NO. M 4341 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION 19.5.2009
Arun
......PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Haryana .
......RESPONDENTS
PRESENT: Mr. RS Chauhan, Advocate Mr. SS Goripuria, DAG, Hry
M.M.S.BEDI,J.
The petitioner is alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly, which had attacked Ram Phal with different weapons, resulting in his death as per the case lodged at the instance of his brother Multan Singh complainant. The petitioner is alleged to have inflicted a lathi blow on the person of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a young man of 19 years of age and is a student having been falsely implicated in the case.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the nature of the allegations against the petitioner that he had attacked deceased Ram Phal with a lathi. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a lathi has been planted in this case, which is not good enough to cause the injury on the person of the deceased.
In view of the specific part having been attributed to the petitioner and he being a member of an unlawful assembly, whose liability is conjoined with the other accused, it will not be appropriate to grant the
Cr.Misc. NO. M 4341 of 2009
2
concession of bail to the petitioner.
Without expression of any opinion on the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is dismissed.
Anything said in the order will not prejudice the right of the petitioner during trial. A direction is issued that the trial court will expeditiously dispose of the trial as 29 witnesses seem to have been cited by the prosecution agency.
May 19 ,2009 TSM
( M.M.S.BEDI ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly.
Whether the trial should be disposed of expeditiously given the number of prosecution witnesses.
Arun
State of Haryana
M.M.S. Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
