The court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail in a criminal case involving family dispute and alleged use of weapons.
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.
CRM-M No. 27864 of 2011
Vinod Kumar
v. State of Haryana
Present: Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate with Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
This is a petition for anticipatory bail filed in case bearing FIR No. 32 dated 30.04.2011, under Sections 148, 149, 307, 506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Nathusari Chopota, District Sirsa.
It is not disputed that the injuries as mentioned have indeed been caused and that injury to which Section 307 IPC is attracted is attributed to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this is a dispute between family members and the petitioner has been falsely implicated because he sided with one faction. The learned Additional Sessions Judge declined the bail on the ground that the petitioner was alleged to have fired two shots at the injured.
In the circumstances I find no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and this petition is dismissed.
( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE
September 15, 2011 sunita
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted where the court finds no reason to differ with the view of the Additional Sessions Judge.
Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in a dispute alleged to be between family members.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vinod Kumar
State of Haryana
AJAY TEWARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
