Allowed

Jitender v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Feb 2012CRM-M/36520/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench allowed regular bail applications for two petitioners. The dispute centered on possession of a plot with allegations of cheating and injury. The court noted the civil nature of the dispute, the lack of injury, and that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, granting bail on satisfaction of the CJM.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted on satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Panipat.

Jitender Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

1. Crl. Misc. No. M- 36520 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: February 25, 2012. Jitender. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana. ...... RESPONDENT (s) 2. Crl. Misc. No. M- 39314 of 2011(O&M). Satyawan @Satta. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶3

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶4

Present: Mr. Arvind Singh and Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, Advocates, for the petitioners.

¶5

Mr. Manmohan Singh Sikka, DAG, Haryana.

¶6

Mr. T.P.Singh, Advocate, for respondent no.2- complainant.

¶7

¶8

¶9

CRM No.M-36520 of 2011

¶10

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶11

This order will dispose of both the aforementioned petitions filed for regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no. 725 dated 02.06.2011, under Sections 307/395/397/447/148/149/511 IPC, registered at police station Panipat city, District Panipat.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Panipat dismissing bail application filed on behalf of the petitioners.

¶13

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is a case of no injury and that, in fact, dispute is civil in nature regarding possession over the plot in dispute and that they have been continuing in custody since 03.06.2011 and that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future.

¶14

These facts have not been disputed by learned counsel for the State.

¶15

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

¶16

However, bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the complainant.

¶17

¶18

CRM No.M-36520 of 2011

¶19

Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, both the applications for regular bail filed on behalf of Jitender and Satyawan @Satta are allowed.

¶20

Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Panipat.

¶21

February 25, 2012. ‘om’

¶22

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE

Jitender v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitender 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

Jasbir Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Guljit Singh Alias Kala Vs State of Punjab

Bharwan Devi @ Bharwan Bai Vs State of Punjab

Bhag Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jagtar Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab

Simarjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab