Allowed

Saurabh @ Hunny v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Dec 2013CRM-M/12265/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail petition granted to petitioner Saurabh @ Hunny, accused of murder andabeting, due to lack of specific injuries attributed to him, failure of prosecution witnesses to identify him, and prolonged trial duration despite limited examination of witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered released on bail during pendency of trial subject to furnishing bail bonds to satisfaction of competent court.

Saurabh @ Hunny Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Criminal Misc.No.M-12265 of 2013

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.No.M-12265 of 2013 Date of Decision: 11^th December, 2013

Saurabh @ Hunny

.. Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

.. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr.P.S.Sullar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Deepak Girhotra AAG, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.

¶15

Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to petitioner Saurabh @ Hunny who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 148 and 302 read with Section 149, IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, in a case arising out of FIR No.94, dated 12.3.2012, registered at Police Station, Ambala Cantt. District Ambala.

¶16

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has not been assigned any specific injuries on the person of deceased Kewal Singh; that 61 persons have been arrayed as prosecution witnesses in the list appended to the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C, and out of them only 24 witnesses have been examined so far in spite of the fact that the charges were framed on 6.9.2012 and the petitioner is behind the bars for the last one year and 09 months.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State though opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner but could not justify the grounds on which the

¶18

Sharma Seema 2013.12.11 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

Criminal Misc.No.M-12265 of 2013

¶20

{2}

¶21

bail has to be declined to the petitioner.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

Concededly, the petitioner has not been attributed any specific injury on the person of the deceased. During supplementary statement, eye witnesses narrated to the police that the petitioner had embraced the deceased at the time of causing the injuries to him but during trial, Gurmail Singh and Amandeep Singh failed to identify him. The third eye-witness, Sukhwinder Singh was given up by the prosecution. The petitioner has already suffered incarceration for 01 year approximately 09 months. Out of 61 witnesses, only 24 have been examined and according to the learned counsel for the State, 26 witnesses still remain to be examined.

¶24

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner-Saurabh @ Hunny son of Sarwan Kumar, r/o 934, Deena Ki Mandi, Ambala Cantt. is ordered to be released on bail during pendency of the trial of the present case, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ambala.

¶25

December 11, 2013 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) seema Judge

¶26

Sharma Seema 2013.12.11 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Saurabh @ Hunny v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh @ Hunny 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

Jabbar Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gursewak Singh Vs State of Punjab

Iqbal Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ajay Chhabra Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Sandeep Bhatia Vs State of Haryana