Allowed

Sidharth v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Nov 2012CRM-M/25257/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-bench order granting regular bail to Sidharth in a murder case. The learned judge noted that the solitary eyewitness, Jaikaran, provided a contradictory supplementary statement, failed to corroboration during trial, and turned hostile, entitling the petitioner to bail.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of like amount.

Sidharth Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. No.M-25257 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision:09.11.2012

Sidharth

... Petitioner

vs.

State of Haryana

... Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶9

Present:Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG Haryana.

¶11

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J(ORAL)

¶12

Sidharth, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 308 dated 5.10.2011 at Police Station Ganaur, District Sonepat, for an offence punishable under sections 148, 216, 302 and 120-B IPC read with section 149 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the FIR, Jaikaran the complainant claimed himself to be an eyewitness of the occurrence and stated that he and his son Budh Singh were going to their village Kalram from Sonepat by boarding a bus in which Parveen and Naveen were also travelling and they killed Budh Singh by firing a shot. They are said to have alighted from the bus thereafter and escaped. According to him, he made a supplementary statement on 14.10.2011 and here he has completely changed the version.

¶14

Crl. Misc. No.M-25257 of 2012 =2=

¶15

According to him, here he has introduced two new persons; one Siddharth the petitioner and the other Sandeep and claimed that out of these two boys, Sandeep had fired a shot and that after getting down from the bus, they escaped. According to him, now this Jaikaran who is the solitary witness of the occurrence has turned hostile. He has placed on record a certified copy of statement of Jaikaran, recorded at the trial.

¶16

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, admits that Jaikaran has been examined at the trial and has failed to support the prosecution case. He also could not dispute the other factual submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶17

Looking to the facts that a vital change had been introduced by the complainant in the version coming in the FIR by making a supplementary statement and that Jaikaran has failed to support the prosecution case at the trial, I find the petitioner to be entitled to bail. Therefore, 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.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.

¶18

November 09,2012 ( VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) Jiten JUDGE

Sidharth v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidharth 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jaimal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sattu @ Satnam Singh Vs State of Haryana

Shinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Gurmail Singh @ Terri Vs State of Punjab

Harpreet Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.