The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed the bail petition of Madan Lal. The court rejected the contention that the petitioner had no role in the house demolition incident, deciding he was not entitled to bail due to the seriousness of the matter.
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.
Crl. Misc. No.M- 1532 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-1532 of 2013 Date of Decision:21.01.2013
Madan Lal ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana
.... Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Madan Lal, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 404 dated 28.10.2011 at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh, for an offence punishable under sections 323, 342, 365, 395, 427, 452, 506 and 120-B IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act.
Crl. Misc. No.M- 1532 of 2013 2
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had no role in the occurrence. According to him, Tapan Bengali and Balbir Singh Saini had been the main culprits and they have been granted bail by this court. He has further submitted that the house in question had been purchased by the son of the petitioner named Rinku. He has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 21.08.2012 and as most of the other accused in this case have been granted bail, the petitioner is also entitled to bail.
A perusal of the FIR would show that a poor family was living in the house in question. A plan was made to demolish that house and to remove all the signs of inhabitation there, in pursuance of which, Ankush, who was there at the house, was taken away on some pretext in a Lancer car and when Naina, his younger sister alone was left at the house, a number of persons swooped at the house and demolished the same and also took away the belongings and rendered Naina homeless. The house is said to have been purchased or rather agreed to have been purchased by Rinku and it was Rinku and his father Madan Lal, the petitioner, who employed so many persons to achieve this object. The case against the petitioner is not parallel to the case of any other accused except his own son Rinku, who is in custody.
Crl. Misc. No.M- 1532 of 2013 3
In these circumstances, looking to the seriousness of
the matter, I do not find the petitioner to be entitled to bail.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
January 21, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the custody proceedings.
Whether the petitioner played a role in the demolition of the house in question.
Whether the gravity of the offence precludes granting bail at this stage.
Madan Lal
The State of Haryana
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
