Petitioner challenged his detention seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court rejected the plea, noting the petitioner was named by eye witnesses and caused injury, thus not entitled to anticipatory bail.
Petitioner denied anticipatory bail; petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-: 1 :-
Crl. Misc. No. M-10690 of 2013 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-10690 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: April 04, 2013.
Hari Ram @ Harri
... Petitioner(s)
v.
State of Haryana
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Shri Ivneet Singh Pabla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral):
The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No. 281 dated 21.9.2012, registered at Police Station Shahbad, under Sections 148, 149, 341, 307, 506 IPC.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that his name does not figure in the FIR; his name has surfaced in the second disclosure statement by Balwinder Singh co-accused; the petitioner is a resident of the same village and as such could have been very well identified by the eye witnesses.
I have considered the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner.
It is mentioned in the FIR that the co-accused of the petitioner accompanied by 5-6 other persons having gandasis and swords have given blow on the brother of the complainant with intention to kill him. Even the
Crl. Misc. No. M-10690 of 2013 (O&M) -: 2 :-
incident is of 6 p.m., on 21.9.2012. During investigation, name of the petitioner has surfaced and even the eye witnesses have named the petitioner. During investigation, it has been found that the petitioner has caused injury with a shovel. Keeping in view this fact coupled with the fact that the co-accused were accompanied by 5-6 persons, and in view of Sections 148/149 IPC, the petitioner is not entitled to concession of anticipatory bail.
Dismissed.
April 04, 2013. kadyan
[ Paramjeet Singh ] Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in light of his direct involvement in the offence as established by eye witnesses and injury caused during investigation.
Whether the petitioner's name appearing in the second disclosure statement and being named by eye witnesses negates his claim of not being in the FIR.
Whether the gravity of the offence, including causing injury with a shovel and the nature of the charge, precludes the grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Hari Ram @ Harri
State of Haryana
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
