Allowed

Saroj Bala v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Sept 2012CRM-M/25036/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order granting pre-arrest bail to accused in a criminal case involving assault and tree-cutting dispute. Conditions imposed include joining investigation and refraining from tampering with evidence or committing similar offences.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted pre-arrest bail subject to joining police investigation and avoiding interference with evidence or commission of similar offences.

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

¶1

CRM M-25036 of 2012 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶3

CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CRM M-25036 of 2012

¶5

Date of Decision: September 24, 2012

Saroj Bala

…..Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana

…..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

¶12

-.-

¶13

Present:Mr.Madan Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana.

¶15

Ms. Trishu Kanwar, Advocate

¶16

-.-

¶17

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶18

Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Surjit Singh alleging that on June 28, 2012, a dispute arose regarding cutting of trees and on June 29, 2012, the complainant received a phone call from Nitesh, complaining that Ranjeet was abusing his father. When the complainant reached the spot, he found Nitesh, Amit, Krishan and petitioner attacking the complainant. Amit has

¶19

CRM M-25036 of 2012 [2]

¶20

been attributed a gandasi blow on the head of the complainant. Pardeep who tried to rescue was also inflicted injuries. So far as petitioner is concerned, she is a lady. She has not been attributed any specific injury. Allegation against her is that she has caught-hold of the complainant facilitating the injury.

¶21

The petitioner is a lady. She has already joined investigation as per the instructions imparted by ASI Babu Lal.

¶22

Counsel for the complainant Ms.Trishu Kanwar, has intervened to oppose the petition contending that the petitioner though is a lady, has actively participated in the occurrence.

¶23

After taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I do not find any sufficient ground to refuse the concession of bail to the petitioner as it is not a case of custodial interrogation.

¶24

Petition is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner, she will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the conditions that she will join investigation as and when required by the police and that she will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner. She will also not commit the similar offence of which she is accused of during the pendency of the trial.

¶25

September 24, 2012 sanjay

¶26

(M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE

Saroj Bala v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Bala 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

Subhash Bhalla Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Subhash Bhalla Vs State of Punjab etc.

Rahul @ Bhallu Vs State of Haryana

Sonam and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rajwanti @ Meena and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Narinder Pal Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab