Petitioner filed a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a dowry death case. The court held that with all prosecution witnesses examined and the case fixed for defense evidence, no bail was warranted and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh.
CRM-M- 14778 of 2011
Decided on Aug 09,2011
Sunny @ Kala
--Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana --Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sagar Deswal,AAG,Haryana
Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:(Oral)
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 registered vide FIR No.152 dated 13.5.2010, under Sections 498/304-B IPC, at Police Station Urban Estate Rohtak.
Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and now the case is fixed for defence evidence before the Court below.
In this view of the matter, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail. Hence this petition is dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge
August 09,2011 RR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in a Section 498/304-B IPC case where all prosecution witnesses have been examined and the case is fixed for defence evidence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sunny @ Kala
State of Haryana
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
