In bail proceedings, the High Court observed that no documentary evidence connected the petitioner to driving the truck and the owner was untraceable, finding the petitioner entitled to bail.
Petition allowed; petitioner ordered to be released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety in the like amount.
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.
1
Crl. Misc. No. M-13314 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
**Crl. Misc. No. M-13314 of 2012 Date of Decision: 25.07.2012 *****
Chaman @ Pappu
.. Petitioner
VS.
State of Haryana
.. Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:Mr. S.K. Daaria, Advocate for the petitioner.
**Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG Haryana. *****
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J(ORAL).
Chaman @ Pappu, the petitioner has sought regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 110 dated 15.6.2011 at Police Station Barara, District Ambala, for an offence punishable under sections 186, 307, 332, 353 and 427 IPC read with section 34 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. According to him, he is named by Shakeel and Intezar in their disclosure statements. He further submits that Shakeel has already been granted bail by this court. He further submits that there is no MLR of anyone to support the charge under section 307 IPC. According to him, there is no evidence even to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. He further submits that truck allegedly recovered from the spot was found to be registered in the name of one Munir and said Munir is not associated
2
Crl. Misc. No. M-13314 of 2012
in the investigation so far.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was found to be driving the truck and he tried to crush the police officials when he was signaled by them to stop. He further submits that Munir was shown by the documents to be a resident of U.P. and his whereabouts could not be traced. He, however, admits that from the truck, no licence or other document was recovered connecting the petitioner with the crime.
The petitioner has been named by his co-accused as driver of the truck. No document is there to connect him with the driving of the said truck. He was not seen by anyone while driving the truck. The owner of the truck could not be associated in the investigation. The petitioner is in custody since 15.9.2011. In these circumstances, I find the petitioner to be entitled to bail. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala.
July 25,2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) Jiten JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in proceedings under sections 186, 307, 332, 353 and 427 IPC despite being in custody.
Whether lack of documentary evidence and delay in associating the owner of the truck preclude denial of bail.
Chaman @ Pappu
State of Haryana
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
