Dismissed

Rajesh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Feb 2011CRM-M/2681/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a bail Petition filed by an accused charged with murder and conspiracy. The court rejected the 'undue delay' argument, attributing adjournments to judicial leave rather than fault. The petition was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn, though the court directed the trial court to expedite the trial.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn. Directed trial court to expedite trial without unnecessary adjournments.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-2681 of 2011 (O&M)

¶2

Date of Decision: 03.02.2011

Rajesh

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH

¶9

Present : Mr. S.S. Kharb, Advocate for the petitioner

¶10

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Present petition is filed seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 197 dated 18.6.2009 under Sections 307, 302, 148, 149, 212, 404, 120-B IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Sampla, District Rohtak.

¶15

Earlier bail application being Crl. Misc. No. M-14409 of 2010 was dismissed by this Court at its own merits vide order dated 14.7.2010. This Court has specifically observed in the order dated 14.7.2010 that it is not a fit case, in which bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is not a simple case, in which the murder of one Rakesh was allegedly committed. A resume of the facts, referred to above, clearly shows that there is a deep rooted enmity between the petitioner and the members of his family, on the one hand and the deceased and the members of his family, on the other. It was on account this reason, that two persons, referred to above being the member of the family of the petitioner and two persons, referred to above, being the members of the family of the deceased were earlier

¶16

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-2681 of 2011 (O&M)

¶18

murdered. In these circumstances, the possibility could not be ruled out that the petitioner allegedly hired the contract killers by financially helping them with a view to commit the murder of Rakesh. The petitioner, therefore, could be allegedly said to be the brain behind the murder of Rakesh. The case is fixed for prosecution evidence. In case, the accused-petitioner is released on bail, the possibility of his tampering with the evidence, influencing the witnesses and his abscondance could not be ruled out.

¶19

Thereafter, another bail application being Crl. Misc. No. M-32561 of 2010 was moved by the petitioner which was dismissed as withdrawn.

¶20

Now present bail application is moved on the ground that there is undue delay in the trial. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that trial was adjourned on 26.8.2010, 25.10.2010, 23.11.2010 and 10.1.2011, therefore, accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Dalip Singh alias Deepa vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2010 (2) RCR(Criminal) 566 FB. This Court in the case of Dalip Singh (supra) has held that an accused under trial in terms of Article 21 of Constitution of India is entitled for remedy including grant of bail or fixing the time frame for the conclusion of the trial.

¶21

Zimni orders dated 26.8.2010, 25.10.2010, 23.11.2010 and 10.1.2011 would show that twice case was adjourned because Presiding Officer was on leave and on the third occasion case was adjourned because date fixed was declared as holiday on account of birthday of Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji. From the perusal of zimni

¶22

¶23

Crl. Misc. No. M-2681 of 2011 (O&M)

¶24

orders, it can not be said that delay was caused for the fault of the prosecution or accused. In my opinion no changed circumstances are found for enlarging the petitioner on bail.

¶25

At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition.

¶26

Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶27

However, it is directed that learned trial Court shall make every effort to expedite the trial and no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted.

¶28

(ALOK SINGH) JUDGE

¶29

03.02.2011 reena

Rajesh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hry St Coop. Labour & Const. Fed Ltd. Vs Hseb & Anr.

Ajmer Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ishwar Jat Vs State of Punjab

Mangal Singh @ Manga Vs State of Punjab

Santosh Sharma Vs State of Punjab