Remanded

Vishal v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Nov 2011CRM-M/14607/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition, the petitioner, detained for nearly 3 years, sought bail due to trial delay. The court acknowledged weak prosecution evidence and intentional avoidance of witness examination. An order was issued directing the trial court to conclude the trial within two months, failing which bail would be granted.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to conclude the trial within two months; otherwise, grant bail to the petitioner.

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

¶1

CRM No.M-14607 of 2011 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-14607 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 14.11.2011

Vishal

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

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

¶11

Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Shalini Attri, D.A.G., Haryana.

¶13

M.M.S. Bedi, J.(Oral)

¶14

The petitioner is in custody for the last 02 years and 09 months in a case registered at the instance of PW1-Raj Bala alleging that she was informed by Manoj that her son Mohan was being beaten by the petitionerSandeep and three others boys.

¶15

As per her statement made in the Court, when she reached at the spot, she saw the petitioner along with two other boys giving beatings to her son-Mohan. The accused on seeing said PW1-Raj Bala, escaped from the spot.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said complainant has made improvement in her statement made in the Court. But, her original statement, resulting in lodging of the FIR, did not contain the fact that she had actually seen the petitioner and others while beating her son. It is claimed that the case of the prosecution is that the complainant had arrived at the spot along with Siri Parkash, Randhir and Bobby. Manoj has already appeared as a witness, but he did not support the case of the prosecution. Randhir and Siri Parkash have been given up by the prosecution agency, whereas only Bobby remains to be examined

¶17

CRM No.M-14607 of 2011 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

and the case is being delayed by not producing said PW-Bobby.

¶20

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shalini Attri, D.A.G., Haryana.

¶21

Statement of Raj Bala in the Court is an improvement over her original statement, which is to be appreciated in the context of other evidence. No doubt with Manoj turning hostile and PW-Randhir and Siri Parkash having not been examined, the case of prosecution remains at a weak footing depending upon the statement of Bobby, which is yet to be recorded. The next date for recording of evidence is stated to be 21.12.2011. As it is claimed by counsel for the petitioner that prosecution is intentionally avoiding to produce Bobby as a witness, as he is not a truthful witness, cannot be appreciated at this stage, but the period of detention i.e. 02 years and 09 months warrants the issuance of an advise to the trial Court to expeditiously dispose of the trial. It is ordered that in case the trial is not concluded within a period of two months after 21.12.2011, the trial Court will grant the concession of bail to the petitioner.

¶22

14.11. 2011 Jyoti 1

¶23

(M.M.S. BEDI) JUDGE

Vishal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal 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

Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab Th. Govt. Food Inspector

Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab Th. Govt. Food Inspector

Pushpinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Paramjit Lal Vs State of Punjab

Davinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ranjit Kaur Bajwa Vs State of Punjab & Anr.