Allowed

Vikram @ Gandhi and Ors. v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2013CRM-M/11450/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court considered an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. noting petitioners were students in a scuffle with non-vital injuries, had joined investigation, and no risk of absconding. The Court accepted the application and made the interim order absolute.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application accepted; order dated 09.04.2013 making interim bail absolute.

Vikram @ Gandhi and Ors. Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No.M-11450 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 11450 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: May 14, 2013.

¶5

Vikram @Gandhi and others

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Haryana

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶10

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

¶11

Present: Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Raja Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no.174 dated 28.02.2013, under Sections 307/325/323/452/427/148/149 IPC, registered at police station Civil Lines, Hisar.

¶16

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

¶17

CRM No.M-11450 of 2013

¶18

¶19

This Court while issuing notice of motion on 09.04.2013 passed the following order:-

¶20

“Contends that petitioners are students and that it was a case of scuffle between students as all of them used to study together in the same institute. Further submitted that main accused to whom injury on head has been attributed, namely, Dipti, has already been arrested. Further submitted that no injury has been attributed to present petitioners-accused Ajay and Sandeep, whereas injuries attributed to petitioners-accused Vikram @Gandhi and Mukesh are simple in nature on the nonvital part of the body, i.e., on arm and leg respectively.

¶21

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana, for 14.5.2013.

¶22

However, in the meantime, petitioners are directed to join the investigation and in case they are arrested, they shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”

¶23

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 09.04.2013.

¶24

It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State, on instruction from ASI Mohinder Singh, that petitioners have joined the investigation. However, bail application has been opposed on the plea that injury has also been attributed to petitioners no.2 and 3 and that co-accused, Dipti was found innocent.

¶25

However, as per allegations in the FIR, injury on the head with

¶26

CRM No.M-11450 of 2013

¶27

¶28

Gandasi has been attributed to co-accused, Dipti and the injury attributed to petitioner no.4-accused, Mukesh is rod blow on leg and injury attributed to petitioner no.1-accused, Vikram is rod blow on the arm i.e. non-vital parts of the body. It was a case of scuffle between students as all of them used to study together in the same institute.

¶29

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.

¶30

Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Vikram @Gandhi, Ajay, Sandeep and Mukesh is accepted and order dated 09.04.2013 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioners is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶31

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶32

May 14, 2013. ‘om’

¶33

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE

Vikram @ Gandhi and Ors. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram @ Gandhi and Ors. 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

Lalit Kumar Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Lalit Kumar Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Lalit Kumar Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Mukhtiar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Lucky and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bina etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.