Allowed

Jitender v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC26 May 2011CRM-M/11718/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in a case under Sections 363, 366-A, and 376 IPC. The High Court observed that material witnesses were examined and extended detention served no useful purpose, thus granting bail without deciding merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Sonipat.

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

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-11718 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-11718 of 2011 Date of decision : 26.05.2011

Jitender

....Petitioner

V/s

State of Haryana

....Respondent

BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Kartar Singh, DAG Haryana.

¶13

Mr. Balraj Singh Rathee, Advocate for the complainant.

¶14

RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)

¶15

This is a petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 382 dated 26.12.2010 under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 IPC at Police Station Nangal Kalan (Sonipat).

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is in custody since 04.01.2011 and case is still at the stage of recording prosecution evidence. He submits that from the allegations, element of consent of prosecutrix is clearly there. He further submits that material prosecution witnesses have already been examined, thus, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody any longer.

¶17

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that allegations against the petitioner are serious. He, however, does

¶18

Criminal Misc. No. M-11718 of 2011

¶19

¶20

not dispute the fact that material prosecution witnesses have been examined and only formal witnesses remain to be examined.

¶21

Keeping in view the aforesaid contentions, period of incarceration of the petitioner and the fact that material prosecution witnesses have been examined, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody any longer. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Sonipat.

¶22

May 26, 2011 Ajay

¶23

(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE

Jitender v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitender 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

Ravinder Vs State of Haryana

Vimal Kumar @ Gora Vs State of Punjab

Jagmal Singh Vs State of Haryana

Rajinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Punjab

Rajesh Vs State of Haryana