Allowed

Shellu v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Jul 2012CRM-M/16786/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to the petitioner, a youth turned over by police involvement in a robber,y attempt. Considering his young age and early stage of trial, the court ordered his release on personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner ordered to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety.

Shellu Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-16786 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

**Crl. Misc. No. M-16786 of 2012 Date of Decision: 20.07.2012 *****

Sheelu

.. Petitioner

VS.

State of Haryana

.. Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present:Mr. Randhir Shehrawat, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

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

¶13

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J(ORAL).

¶14

Sheelu, the petitioner has sought regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 380 dated 7.9.2011 at Police Station Meham, District Rohtak, for an offence punishable under sections 398 and 401 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act.

¶15

The case against the petitioner is that the police party came to know from secret informer that three boys were there at the spot and were preparing to rob the passerby, EHC Manjit Singh was sent ahead and the other members of the police party followed him. The motor-cycle of Manjit Singh was got stopped by the two boys and putting knife on the neck of Manjit Singh, he was tried to be robbed. In the meanwhile, the other members of the police party reached there and tried to nab the culprits and only the petitioner was caught at the spot and recovery of a knife was effected from him.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not have any history of crime. According to him, he

¶17

¶18

Crl. Misc. No. M-16786 of 2012

¶19

has been falsely involved by the police. He further submits that he is in custody since 7.9.2011 and the trial is still at the stage of beginning. According to him, the petitioner is a young boy of 20/22 years and in these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody any further.

¶20

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, admits that there is no history of crime against the petitioner. He also admits that the petitioner is a young boy of 20/22 years. According to him, out of eight witnesses cited at the trial, three have been examined and the next date fixed in the case is 18.8.2012.

¶21

Looking to the fact that the petitioner is a young boy of the age of 20/22 years and is in custody for the last about 10 months and the trial is at the stage of beginning, 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.

¶22

July 20,2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) Jiten JUDGE

Shellu v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shellu 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

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

Sanjit Vs State of Haryana

Raju Vs State of Haryana