Single Judge dismissed an application for regular bail filed by Manoj under Section 439 CrPC alleging murder and use of arms. The Court refused bail due to the gravity of allegations, presence of conspiracy charges, multiple deaths, and distinction from co-accused who were differently situated.
Regular bail application dismissed.
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.
Crl. Misc. No. M-10120 of 2012 (O&M)
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-10120 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: July 09, 2012.
Manoj
... Petitioner(s)
v.
State of Haryana
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Shri Gunjan Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri Sidharth Sarup, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral):
Present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case arising out of FIR No.235, dated 19.5.2011, registered at Police Station Urban Estate, Rohak, under Sections 302, 307, 216 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 25-30/54/59 of the Arms Act.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations in the FIR are that the person who had fired shot had run away in a white car. However, neither the car belongs to the petitioner nor the petitioner was present at the spot. He further submits that the weapon allegedly used in the crime was not recovered from the petitioner and neither it belongs to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the co-accused namely Jitender @ Jonny and Sanjivan have already been granted bail. He submits that all the eye witnesses have turned hostile and nothing has come against the petitioner.
Learned Counsel for the State, after seeking instructions from
Crl. Misc. No. M-10120 of 2012 (O&M) -: 2 :-
ASI Narain Dutt, states that already seven witnesses have been examined out of 33 witnesses and some of them may be formal witnesses.
Learned Counsel for the State vehemently argued that no case is made out even on the basis of claimed parity with regard to grant of bail to Jitender @ Jonny and Sanjivan. This is a case where the allegations of conspiracy and following the victim in the hospital are levelled. Two persons have died. Even one of the security guard of the hospital has expired. The case of the petitioner is clearly distinguishable from that of coaccused Jitender @ Jonny and Sanjivan.
Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations, this Court does not deem it fit and proper that bail should be granted to the petitioner. No merit.
Dismissed.
July 09, 2012. kadyan
[ Paramjeet Singh ] Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case alleging murder and conspiracy where co-accused have already been granted bail.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Manoj
State of Haryana
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
