Allowed

Hardeep Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Aug 2011CRM-M/14356/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a bail petition pending trial filed by Hardeep Singh against Sections 323, 324, 307, 285, 506, 34 and Arms Act. The court directed his release on bail with heavy surety and a strict daily presence condition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with heavy surety and condition to mark presence daily at Police Station Kalanwali, Sirsa.

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

¶1

In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh.

¶2

CRM-M- 14356 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

Decided on Aug 12,2011

Hardeep Singh

--Petitioner

vs.

State of Haryana

--Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶10

Present: Mr.Jagjit Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶11

Mr.Sagar Deswal, AAG,Haryana

¶12

Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:(Oral)

¶13

This is a petition for regular bail pending trial under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.) in a case FIR No.34 dated 09.3.2011, under Sections 323, 324, 307, 285, 506, 34& 25/54/59 Arms Act IPC, at Police Station, Kalanwali.

¶14

Allegation against the petitioner is that he had caused one injury to Rajender on his right elbow and another to Gurpreet on his left arm with a kirpan. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the injuries have been found to be simple in nature and the petitioner is in custody since 22.3.2011. Earlier, the petitioner was agitating that he was a juvenile but now vide order dated 11.8.2011 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa, he has not been found to be juvenile. A copy of the said order is produced on record by the learned State Counsel.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier caused grievous injury to Rajender, as a result of which FIR No. 194 dated 16.10.2010 was registered in the same police station, therefore,

¶16

CRM-M-14356 of 2011 (O&M) -2-

¶17

he does not deserve the concession of bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that in the said case, the petitioner was released on bail and would not repeat any such thing after having been released on bail by this Court and in order to ensure it, this Court may impose any stringent condition on the petitioner.

¶18

The petitioner is in custody for causing simple injuries from almost five months and the challan has already been presented.

¶19

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case but without making any observations on the merit, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds with heavy surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court and also with the condition that he will mark his presence every day in the Police Station Kalanwali, District Sirsa, during the investigation of this case. It is made clear that in case the petitioner does not comply with the condition so imposed, then the State is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of his bail.

¶20

A copy of this order be given to the learned State Counsel under the signatures of Bench Secretary of this Court.

¶21

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

¶22

August 12,2011 RR

Hardeep Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardeep Singh 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

Mohan Lal @ Monu Vs State of Haryana

Jeet Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Rattan Singh Vs State of Haryana

Shukla Khosla Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.

Rakesh Kadian and Anr. Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Sandeep Kumar Duggal Vs State of Haryana