Disposed

Rakesh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Nov 2011CRM-M/11059/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim bail petition, the High Court refused immediate discharge but directed the trial court to conclude the trial within three months of the next hearing date, otherwise the petitioner would be released on bail.

What did the court decide?

Direction given to the trial court to conclude the trial within three months of November 8, 2011; otherwise, petitioner to be released on bail.

Rakesh Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-11059 of 2011

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶4

CHANDIGARH.

¶5

Crl. Misc. No. M-11059 of 2011

¶6

Date of Decision: November 2, 2011

Rakesh

…..Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana

…..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

¶13

-.-

¶14

Present:Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶15

Ms.Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana.

¶16

-.-

¶17

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶18

Petitioner seeks the concession of regular bail inter-alia on the ground that the petitioner was involved in the case on the basis of the circumstantial evidence including the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the petitioner before Badam Singh, Sarpanch. Said Badam Singh has already been examined as PW3 and not supported the case of prosecution.

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-11059 of 2011

¶20

[2]

¶21

State counsel informs that all the witnesses except for three official witnesses, remain to be examined and that next date of hearing before the trial Court is November 8, 2011. It has been argued by the State counsel that the entire evidence will be produced by the prosecution on next date of hearing.

¶22

I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. One of the very important circumstances which requires to be appreciated for connection of petitioner with the crime is the recovery of mobile phone from the petitioner containing the record of the calls made by the petitioner with the deceased Sangeeta before the occurrence. It will not be appropriate at this stage to appreciate the strength of said circumstantial evidence to arrive at any conclusion whether prima facie that evidence could be sufficient enough to complete the chain of circumstances which could be said to warrant a presumption that petitioner and none else is guilty of the alleged offence.

¶23

Avoiding the appreciation of evidence at this stage, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that in case the trial is not concluded within a period of three months from the next date of hearing i.e. November 8, 2011, the petitioner will be released on bail by the said Court on petitioner’s furnishing bail bonds/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of the said Court.

¶24

Copy of the order be sent to the Trial Court.

¶25

November 2, 2011 sanjay

¶26

Crl. Misc. No. M-11059 of 2011 [3]

Rakesh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakhwinder Singh @ Kala Vs State of Haryana

Bakshish Singh Vs State of Punjab

Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Gurpreet Singh @ Gora Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jaswinder Singh @ Monu Vs State of Punjab and Another