Allowed

Dheeraj v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC22 May 2013CRM-M/10045/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding FIR sections 148, 149, 307 IPC and Arms Act. Petitioner accused of firing during election. Issued on slender co-accused statement unsupported by prosecution witnesses. Oral order.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to be furnished to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Faridabad.

Dheeraj Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRL. MISC. No.M-10045 OF 2013 DATE OF DECISION : 22nd MAY, 2013

Dheeraj

…. Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

…. Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶9

¶10

Present : Mr. S. K. Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Subhash Godara, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

¶12

¶13

L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Accused – Dheeraj has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for bail in case FIR No.146 dated 01.10.2012 registered under Sections 148, 149 and 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Tigaon, District Faridabad.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case

¶16

file.

¶17

According to FIR lodged by Inspector SHO Inder Singh, he received telephonic information from ASI Aman Kumar that during election of Youth Congress, gun shot had been fired. On reaching the spot, the Inspector learnt that petitioner’s co-accused Parveen Chandela – a candidate

¶18

CRL. MISC. NO.M-10045 OF 2013

¶19

- 2 -

¶20

in the election, along with co-accused had fired at Dhara Chaprana – also a candidate in the election. Dhara Chaprana suffered fire arm injury in stomach.

¶21

Learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Ram Kumar, stated that the witnesses have made general statement that the accused persons fired at the injured but petitioner’s co-accused Bhura has made statement that pistol was handed over to him by the petitioner and thereupon he i.e. Bhura fired at Dhara Chaprana. It was also stated that the petitioner is in custody since 09.12.2012 i.e. for more than five months.

¶22

There is no statement by any prosecution witnesses during investigation that shot was fired by the petitioner or that the petitioner handed over the pistol to co-accused Bhura. There is only statement of co-accused Bhura in this regard. Even according to said statement, the shot was fired by Bhura and not by the petitioner.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid, but without meaning to comment anything on merits of the case, the instant bail petition is allowed.

¶24

Bail to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Faridabad.

¶25

22^nd May, 2013 (L. N. MITTAL) ‘raj’ JUDGE

Dheeraj v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeraj 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

Tarlochan Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jaswant Singh @ Tinku Vs State of Punjab

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

Jagdish Rai etc. Vs State of Pb.Tec.

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

Ved Parkash Vs State of Haryana