In a bail petition under Section 439 CrPC, the High Court dismissed the application. The Court held that the acquittal of a juvenile co-accused was due to non-examination of witnesses, not the petitioner's innocence, and the serious nature of the robbery allegations warranted denial of bail.
The petition for regular bail 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 and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M- 21785 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.9.2010
Liyakat
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.A.K.Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana.
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 233 dated 2.9.2009, under Sections 395, 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short), registered at Police Station Taura District Mewat.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused had boarded the truck and had beaten up the drivers of the truck in question. The drivers were left at the spot after Rs.10,000/- were snatched from them.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that coaccused Ikran, who was a juvenile, has since been acquitted by the
Criminal Misc. No.M- 21785 of 2010 (O&M)
-2-
Juvenile Court. The petitioner is in custody for the last one year and has been falsely involved in this case.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the petitioner is also involved in another case under Sections 399/ 402 IPC.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.
Although co-accused Ikran, who was a juvenile, has been acquitted by the Juvenile Court but that is no ground to grant bail to the petitioner. A perusal of the judgment, whereby co-accused Ikran was acquitted by the Juvenile Court (shown during the course of arguments) reveals that the drivers of the truck had not been examined in the said case, inter alia, due to that reason the coaccused was acquitted. However, the trial qua the petitioner is pending. The petitioner is also involved in another case under Sections 399/ 402 IPC.
Keeping in view the seriousness of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, no ground for grant of bail is made out.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE
anita
September 07, 2010
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the acquittal of a co-accused juvenile.
Whether the seriousness of the alleged offence precludes the grant of bail.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Liyakat
State of Haryana
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
