Allowed

Naveen Kumar v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Aug 2012CRM-M/20176/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court granted bail pending trial to the petitioner who was detained for over four months, suffered acid injuries, and had his jewelry shop ransacked, citing the case of Sanjay Chandra versus CBI.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail pending trial to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. M-20176 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.8.2012

Naveen Kumar

.....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Haryana

.....Respondent.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶9

Present : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate

¶10

for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Assistant A.G., Haryana.

¶12

¶13

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL)

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail pending trial, by way of instant petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in the case arising out of FIR No. 87 dated 29.3.2012 under Section 326 IPC, registered at Police Station Sarai Khawaja, District Faridabad.

¶15

Notice of motion was issued.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that besides petitioner is inside the jail for the last about 5 months, he himself suffered liquid burn injuries because of the acid, as reported vide MLR (Annexure P- 1). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since challan has already been presented, the trial will take long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner inside the jail. He has also shown some photographs, perusal of which shows that jewellery shop of the petitioner was ransacked.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Suresh, Police Station Sarai Khawaja, District Faridabad, submits that when the site was inspected by the investigating agency, shop of the petitioner was found

¶18

¶19

Criminal Misc. No. M-20176 of 2012

¶20

ransacked. However, he submits that since the allegations are direct and specific, petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail pending trial.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is just and expedient to extend the benefit of concession of bail pending trial to the petitioner. I say so because of more than one reasons, being recorded hereinafter.

¶22

Firstly, it is an admitted fact that jewellery shop of the petitioner was found ransacked. Secondly, the petitioner has also suffered injuries, which is clear from Annexure P-1. Thirdly, the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than 4 months. Further, trial will take considerable long time.

¶23

The view taken by this Court also finds support from the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra versus CBI, 2011 (4) RCR (criminal) 896.

¶24

Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, petitioner is directed to be released on bail pending trial to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

¶25

Resultantly, the instant is allowed.

¶26

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶27

Ak Sharma

¶28

23.8.2012

Naveen Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Haryana

Krishna Vs State of Punjab

Kanwaljit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab

Tarsem Singh Vs State of Punjab

Neela Singh Vs State of Punjab