Allowed

Sandeep @ Kalu v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jul 2012CRM-M/12494/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner accused under IPC Sections 148, 149, 302 and Arms Act. Ruling that no specific role or injury was attributed to him in the death-causing incident, the petition was allowed with a note that it was not an expression on merit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing bonds/sureties to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Fatehabad.

Sandeep @ Kalu Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM M-12494 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM M-12494 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 23, 2012

Sandeep @ Kalu

... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Sidharth Sarup, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral)

¶14

This is a petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 157 dated 01.09.2011, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 302 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that only allegation against the petitioner – Sandeep @ Kalu is to the effect that he had slapped Anil son of Rishi Lal. Thereafter, the complainant party went towards the house of the accused petitioner and others to lodge a protest armed with 12 bore licensed gun and pistol. In the second part of the incident, the name of the petitioner is not specifically referred in the FIR. No specific role is attributed to him. Even in the statement of Ravinder, injury has been attributed to Sandeep which is simple injury inflicted on the person of Ravinder. It

¶16

CRM M-12494 of 2012 2

¶17

is still a debatable question whether the complainant party was aggressor.

¶18

Since no injury has been attributed and no specific role is attributed in the subsequent incident whereby the death has been caused, the petitioner can be granted concession of bail.

¶19

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Fatehabad. However, anything herein above referred shall not be taken as an expression on merit.

¶20

July 23, 2012 [Paramjeet Singh] vkd Judge

Sandeep @ Kalu v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep @ Kalu 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

Rajesh @ Judge and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sukhdev Singh @ Sukhpal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gurdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Tarlok Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ram Kishan Vs State of Haryana

Taranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab