Allowed

Sanjit v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Jul 2012CRM-M/15828/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition sought regular bail for the petitioner. The court granted bail, observing that although incriminating documents were recovered from the petitioner, the principal witnesses had failed to identify him as the accused at the time of the trial.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner released on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety.

Sanjit Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-15828 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-15828 of 2012 Date of Decision: 20.07.2012

Sanjit

.. Petitioner

VS.

State of Haryana

.. Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶12

Present:Mr. J.S. Mehndiratta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

**Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG Haryana. *****

¶14

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J(ORAL).

¶15

Sanjit, the petitioner has sought regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 59 dated 6.2.2011 at Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak, for an offence punishable under sections 392 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the FIR was registered under the aforesaid sections, but the charges were framed for the offence under sections 397, 412 and 420 IPC also. He further submits that the allegations in this case are that three persons snatched a car from Satinder Rana who was travelling with Kapil at that time. According to him, Satinder Rana and Kapil have already been examined as PW1 and PW2 and they have ffailed to identify the accused as the persons who robbed them of the car. He further submits that no recovery had been effected from the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner is in custody since 25.4.2011.

¶17

¶18

Crl. Misc. No. M-15828 of 2012

¶19

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the photocopy of RC of the car and driving licence of the complainant had been recovered from the petitioner and the car had been recovered from the other co-accused of the petitioner named Karambir and Amit.

¶20

It is one thing that a witness at the trial fails to identify the accused as a culprit, but it is yet another thing that he says that the assailant is not present in the court and the person who is present in the court did not commit the offence. Statements of witnesses Satinder Rana and Kapil are of the second category. It is to be seen by the court after taking evidence as to whether the petitioner had retained the photocopy of the registration certificate of the car and driving licence of the complainant while parting with the car itself. In these circumstances, taking into account the custody period of the petitioner, I find him 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.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.

¶21

July 20,2012 Jiten

¶22

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

Sanjit v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjit 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

Mannan Vs State of Haryana.

Jia Lal Bansal Vs State of Punjab

Ranjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sangeeta Vs State of Haryana

Raju Vs State of Haryana

Shellu Vs State of Haryana