Petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 CrPC. The single judge declined to grant bail after hearing counsel and noting the delay in framing charges.
Petition for regular bail 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-14365 of 2012 Date of decision: 16.8.2012
Reena
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.NK Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.SK Hooda, Addl.AG, Haryana
Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)
By filing the present petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought regular bail in case FIR No.715, dated 9.10.2011, registered under Sections 323, 506, 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Rohtak.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is delay of five days in lodging the FIR. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. He is in custody since 17.10.2011.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail.
Heard.
The petitioner in her extra judicial confession has admitted that she had given fist blows to the Ratnu, who died later on. The challan has been presented. The charges are yet to be framed.
Dismissed.
16.8.2012
gsv
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in the specific charges of murder and related offences.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Reena
State of Haryana
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
