Mufid Vs State of Haryana

This petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Mufid son of Fajjar, petitioner-accused, for releasing him on bail in the event of his arrest in FIR No. 324 dated 25.9.2011 registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. He was allowed interim anticipatory bail, vide order dated 1.11.2011 subject to one of the condition that he shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

¶16

According to the State counsel, he joined the investigation but he is not disclosing the source of pistol, recovered from the possession of the other accused, and as such his custodial interrogation is required.

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M- 32749 of 2011(O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

For proving the offence mentioned in the FIR, the prosecution is not required to prove the sources of weapon and it is only to prove that the pistol was recovered from the possession of the accused and he was not having any licence under Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959, for keeping that pistol in his possession. Therefore, it cannot be said that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.

¶20

In the result, the order dated 1.11.2011 is hereby made absolute subject to the conditions incorporated therein.

¶21

Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶22

(GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE

¶23

December 13, 2011 PARAMJIT

Mufid v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mufid 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

Parkash Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mannu @ Kumar Gaurav Vs State of Punjab

Ravi Dhawan Vs State of Punjab

Mubarik and Others Vs State of Haryana

Ved Parkash Vs State of Haryana

Dinesh Kumar @ Dinney Vs State of Haryana