Single judge bail petition under Section 439 CrPC. Petitioner argued non-mention in FIR, lack of specific role, and presence by chance. Court allowed bail stating no State case on absconding or witness intimidation.
Bail granted to the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana.
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.
CRM No.M-12154 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 12154 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: May 27, 2013.
Nitin Jethi
...... PETITIONER(s)
Versus
State of Punjab
...... RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. Rajat Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Garg, AAG, Punjab. *****
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed for regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no.152 dated 25.12.2012, under Sections 307/395/148/149 IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at police station Division No.8, Ludhiana.
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, Ludhiana dismissing bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.
It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner-accused that his name has not been mentioned in the FIR and that no specific role has been attributed to petitioner-accused. It is further submitted that no recovery
CRM No.M-12154 of 2013
2
was also effected from him. It is further submitted that he is a student and that he was having no concern with the restaurant where occurrence had taken place. It is further contended that he is involved in this case as he was present by chance at that time in the restaurant alongwith other guests. It is further submitted that though as per allegations his name was mentioned in the supplementary statement of complainant and however, even in the supplementary statement, no specific role has been attributed to him. It is further contended that he has been continuing in custody since 02.01.2013 and that his case is on better footing than co-accused, Rishi Banda, who has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.04.2013 passed in Criminal Misc. No.M-4660 of 2013. It is further contended that investigation already completed and challan filed and however, trial is not likely to be concluded in near future.
The factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for
the State.
There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.
Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, the instant application for regular bail filed on behalf of Nitin Jethi is allowed.
Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE
May 27, 2013. ‘om’
CRM No.M-12154 of 2013 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 439 CrPC given no allegations of absconding or influence over witnesses.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nitin Jethi
State of Punjab
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
