Allowed

Sanjay v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Oct 2012CRM-M/29247/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed. The court noted the petitioner is already on bail in a related dacoity case and the trial for the present charge is not likely to conclude soon, making continued incarceration pointless.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner be admitted to bail during the pendency of the trial, subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Bhiwani.

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

¶1

CRM No.M-29247 of 2012 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No.M-29247 of 2012 (O&M)

¶4

Date of decision : 12.10.2012

Sanjay

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Ajay Gulati, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)

¶14

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No.35 dated 08.02.2012, registered under Sections 412/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two FIRs stand registered against the petitioner, one being FIR No.68 of 14.01.2012, registered at P.S. Nai Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar, U.P., the place where the alleged dacoity was committed, and the present one, being FIR No.35 dated 08.02.2012, at P.S. Tosham, District Bhiwani, where the alleged recovery was effected. The learned

¶16

CRM No.M-29247 of 2012 (O&M) -2-

¶17

counsel refers to the order dated 06.08.2012, passed by Hon'ble the Allahabad High Court, Annexure P-1, whereby, the petitioner has been admitted to bail. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 08.02.2012, and he is not involved in any other case.

¶18

The learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Leelakant, Police Station Tosham, submits that the petitioner is not involved in any other FIR, except the one mentioned hereinabove.

¶19

Heard.

¶20

Admittedly, the petitioner already stands admitted to bail in FIR No.68 dated 14.01.2012, by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. He is in custody since 08.02.2012. Challan has been filed and the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future. Therefore, no purpose would be achieved by keeping the petitioner in further incarceration.

¶21

In view of the above, without adverting to the merits of the present case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail during the pendency of the trial, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Bhiwani.

¶22

12.10.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE

¶23

Note : Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes / No

Sanjay v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay 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

Raj Kumar and Another Vs State of Haryana

Randhir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Gursharanjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Avinash Vs State of Punjab

Gurbaj Singh Vs State of Punjab

Krishan Kumar Vs State of Haryana