Allowed

Ali v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Sept 2012CRM-M/18717/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice Vijender Singh Malik considered an application for pre-arrest bail. The High Court found that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation and that no substantive evidence connected him to driving the vehicle beyond co-accused statements. The petition was allowed, making the interim anticipatory bail order absolute.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; interim anticipatory bail order made absolute.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. No.M-18717 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: 25.09.2012

Ali

... Petitioner

vs.

State of Haryana

... Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶9

Present:Mr. P.L. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG Haryana.

¶11

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J(ORAL)

¶12

Ali, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 60 dated 16.3.2012 at Police Station Sector 40, District Gurgaon, for an offence punishable under sections 279 and 336 IPC and sections 2,8,80, 4-A of Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act,1955 and section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case has been registered on a statement of a secret informer who is not to be put in the witness-box. According to him, when the police reached the spot, it found nothing at the spot to connect the petitioner with the offence. He further submits that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and has cooperated with the same.

¶14

Crl. Misc. No.M-18717 of 2012 =2=

¶15

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, on instructions from ASI Hakimuddin, submits that at the spot two cows and a calf were found and they were in injured condition. He, however, admits that besides the disclosure statements of the co-accused, there is no other evidence connecting the petitioner with the crime. He further submits that on checking of vehicle lying at the spot, no proof was found connecting the petitioner with the driving of the vehicle.

¶16

Nothing is there with the police connecting the petitioner with the driving of the vehicle. The only evidence against him is the disclosure statements of other co-accused. It appears that custodial interrogation of the petitioner would also provide no help to the prosecution because either he admits driving the vehicle or deny the same and in both cases that would not be any evidence favouring the prosecution. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and has cooperated with the same, I find him to be entitled to pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the petition is allowed and order dated 29.6.2012 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

¶17

September 25,2012 ( VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) Jiten JUDGE

Ali v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ali 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

Sarabjit Kaur @ Babbi Vs State of Punjab

Naveen Bhardwaj & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Surinder Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Manjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harjeet Singh @ Kaka Vs State of Punjab

Sohan Singh Goga Vs State of Punjab