Dismissed

Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Apr 2011CRM-M/10410/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The court held that given the gravity of the alleged offences involving attempted murder and the use of arms, along with the manner of commission of the crime, the petitioner was not entitled to bail despite the trial being in progress.

What did the court decide?

The petition for regular bail was dismissed; petitioner not entitled to bail.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of Haryana — Punjab & Haryana HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-10410 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. M-10410 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 6.4.2011

Shiv Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶10

Present: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Rajan Gupta, J. (oral)

¶12

This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and 25(54)/59 of Arms Act at Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh, District Bahadurgarh, vide FIR No.305 dated 13^th July, 2010.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 4^th August, 2010. Trial of the case is already in progress. He is, thus, entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

¶15

The FIR was lodged on statement of Satpal, who stated that he was working as a Chowkidar in the premises of HSIDC, Sector 17, Jakhoda. He was sitting in the said premises along with one Ajay at 4.00 A.M. on 13^th July, 2011. He went for a round of the plot after

¶16

Crl. Misc. No. M-10410 of 2011

¶17

leaving Ajay at the spot. When he reached near the gate, he saw two boys standing near Alto car belonging to his Engineer. Both the boys were having muffled faces. On seeing him, they threatened him to leave, otherwise they would fire. One of them fired at the complainant badly injuring him in his shoulder. He was taken to hospital by the other Chowkidar Ajay. During investigation, investigating agency came to the conclusion that Shiv Kumar (petitioner herein) was the main accused in the occurrence.

¶18

In view of the nature of allegations, manner of commission of crime and the punishment it would entail in case of conviction, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.

¶19

(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE

¶20

6.4.2011 'rajpal'

Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dera Udasian Kalaur Vs Additional Director Panchayat & Ors.

Raj Rani Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Malook Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rano Bai Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jatinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab