Allowed

Devender v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Apr 2013CRM-M/11395/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice G.S. Sandhawalia allowed the petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Devender, a minor on the date of the incident involved in an assault case, directing release to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail to satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer and case disposed of.

Devender Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM No.M-11395 of 2013 Decided on: 17.04.2013

Devender

... Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

¶9

Present: Mr. K.D.S.Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana.

¶11

¶12

G.S.Sandhawalia, J.(Oral)

¶13

The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.881 dated 24.11.2012 under Section 323, 324, 307 IPC registered at Police Station City Rohtak, District Rohtak.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the incident took place on 24.11.2012 and the petitioner was granted bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak on 07.12.2012 on the ground that the offence was bailable. Subsequently, Section 307 IPC has been added in the FIR, therefore, the petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak on 02.04.2013 on the ground that the petitioner has caused serious injuries to the mother of the complainant and life threatening injury to the injured complainant. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has further recorded that since further investigation is to be conducted from the petitioner, therefore custodial interrogation is necessary.

¶15

Learned State counsel has produced the record of the case, which shows that the complainant was admitted in the hospital on

¶16

24.11.2012 and discharged on 29.11.2012 and the drain in the chest

¶17

CRM No.M-11395 of 2013 -2-

¶18

had been inserted. Subsequently, an opinion was taken on 15.03.2013 that the injury was dangerous to life due to insertion of drain in the chest. The occurrence is more than 5 months old. Admittedly, the weapon of offence has already been recovered as stated by State counsel on instructions from HC Rajender. The date of birth of the petitioner is 30.09.1995 as per Annexure P-2, and on the date of the incident, he was a minor.

¶19

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is no more required. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer.

¶20

The present petition stands disposed of.

¶21

(G.S.Sandhawalia) Judge

¶22

17.04.2013 sonia

Devender v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devender 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

Sarwan Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sushma Rani and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Subhash Chand & Anr. Vs State of Punjab etc.

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

Harmeet Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab etc.

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