Single judge of High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC, holding the case too serious at this stage and noting petitioner's stay in custody. Case subject to exceptions.
Bail application dismissed being devoid of merits; order allowed subject to just exceptions for cross-objection.
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.
Crl.M.No.M-19896 of 2012(O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-19896 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: July 13, 2012
Mohit
.....Petitioner
v.
The State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Radhe Shyam Sharma Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Crl.M.No.38516 of 2012
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.No.M-19896 of 2012
The present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.53, dated 8.3.2012, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 356, 392, 395, 397 IPC, registered at Police Station Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for bail was dismissed.
Brief allegations are that co-accused waylaid complainant and had taken away key of his motor-cycle and gave lathi blow to him. Name of petitioner has also been mentioned in the FIR. He alongwith 5-6 other
Crl.M.No.M-19896 of 2012(O&M)
-2-
persons while armed with deadly weapons also attacked the complainant and when uncle of complainant intervened, he was also attacked. Golden chain of uncle of complainant was taken away by present petitioneraccused, which was later on recovered as per his disclosure statement.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner -accused that petitioner has been continuing in custody since 10.3.2012 and that co-accused have already been released on regular bail.
However, case of present petitioner cannot be said to be similar to co-accused as their names have not been mentioned in the FIR. Allegations are serious in nature. Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which relief of bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused, at this stage.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Mohit for grant of bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
13 .7.2012
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused under Section 439 CrPC given the serious nature of allegations and that co-accused names were not in FIR.
Whether the petitioner's case is similar to co-accused who were released on bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohit
The State of Haryana
RAM CHAND GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
