Order granting regular bail to Ravi Kumar and Siku. The court disposed of two petitions under Section 439 CrPC, allowing bail without expressing an opinion on merits after noting custody duration and lack of absconding risks.
Bail granted to satisfy CJM/Duty Magistrate, Rohtak.
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-12549 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. Crl. Misc. No. M- 12549 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: May 17, 2013. Ravi Kumar ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana ...... RESPONDENT (s) 2. Crl. Misc. No. M- 13544 of 2013(O&M). Siku ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana ...... RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mrs. Maloo Chahal, DAG, Haryana.
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
This order will dispose of both the aforementioned petitions filed for regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no.446 dated 01.12.2011, under Sections 365/302/202/177/34 IPC and
CRM No.M-12549 of 2013
2
Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at police station Sadar, Rohtak.
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, Rohtak dismissing bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners.
It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioners-accused that petitioner-accused, Ravi Kumar has been continuing in custody since 02.12.2011 and petitioner-accused, Siku has been continuing in custody since 01.12.2011. It is further contended that material witnesses have been examined and that they have not supported the prosecution version. It is further submitted that there is no other legally admissible evidence against petitioners-accused.
This factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for the State, on instruction from SI Darshan Singh,
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.
Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, both the applications for regular bail filed on behalf of Ravi Kumar and Siku are allowed.
Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Rohtak.
May 17, 2013. ‘om’
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to petitioners accused of murder and illegal possession of arms.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravi Kumar
Siku
State of Haryana
RAM CHAND GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
