Allowed

Sumit v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Dec 2012CRM-M/28529/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to three petitioners involved in a firing incident, observing that the complainant's testimony did not fully support the prosecution case against them regarding specific overt acts.

What did the court decide?

Concession of regular bail and order to release petitioners upon furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

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

¶1

CRM M-28529 of 2012

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶4

CHANDIGARH.

¶5

Date of Decision: December 19, 2012

¶6

CRM M-28529 of 2012 Sumit …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent 2. CRM M-31249 of 2012 Parmit @ Meeta …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent 3. CRM M-34053 of 2012 Manoj @ Mannu …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

¶7

CRM M-28529 of 2012

¶8

[2]

¶9

-.-

¶10

Present:Proxy counsel for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate the petitioner in CRM M-28529 of 2012.

¶11

Mr.D.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM M-31249 of 2012.

¶12

Mr.Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM M-34053 of 2012.

¶13

Ms.Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana.

¶14

-.-

¶15

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

¶16

This order will dispose of three petitions bearing CRM M- 28529, M-31249 and M-34053 of 2012 for grant of regular bail in a case registered at the instance of Mahender Singh alleging that there was a firing incident on March27, 2012 between two groups in which Anil had fired a shot hitting the son of the complainant. The complainant also received a pallet injury in the cross-firing. The complainant has already been examined. He did not fully support the case of the prosecution so far as the petitioners are concerned. The petitioners have not been attributed any specific part of having fired at the deceased or any other person injured.

¶17

Taking into consideration the fact that the complainant has already been examined and the petitioners having not been attributed any specific overt act resulting in death of son of the complainant, they can be

¶18

CRM M-28529 of 2012

¶19

[3]

¶20

granted the concession of bail as they have been in custody w.e.f. March 30, 2012.

¶21

Petitions are allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on

¶22

bail on their furnishing bail bonds/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of the

¶23

trial Court

¶24

December 19 , 2012 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE

Sumit v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit 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

Rakesh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

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

Satwinder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurjinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Akash Jain Vs State of Punjab