Allowed

Ravinder v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Mar 2013CRM-M/1777/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants pre-arrest bail to a petitioner after an offence under Section 307 IPC was added, attributing that injury to a co-accused. The court held that adverse circumstances did not change for the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner granted pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds, joining investigation, and not tampering with evidence.

Ravinder Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM-M-1777 of 2013 (O&M)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-1777 of 2013 (O&M). Date of decision: March 15, 2013.

Ravinder

..... Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana

..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI PRESENT: Mr.Surender Deswal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms.Shalini Attri, DAG., Haryana. Mr.Vikrant Hooda, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶12

M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL).

¶13

Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Narender alleging that on 25.11.2012, his brother and petitioner had threatened him for buying land of Yogender and given beatings to him. In the evening when the complainant's son Amit returned, he told that he had committed mistake by beating his brother. On this the petitioner had gone with an axe in his hand along with his son Ankit and dragged Amit inside his house.

¶14

So far as the petitioner is concerned, he has been attributed axe blow on the left hand of Bimla wife of the complainant.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently

¶16

¶17

CRM-M-1777 of 2013 (O&M)

¶18

contended that the petitioner has been granted the concession of bail but on addition of offence under Section 307 IPC, apprehension of arrest has arisen.

¶19

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶20

Counsel for the complainant has submitted that in similar circumstances a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Pawan has been dismissed by this Court on 12.3.2013.

¶21

The petitioner appears to have shared a common intention with Ankit who has been attributed injury dangerous to life on the person of Amit.

¶22

As the petitioner had been granted the concession of regular bail for the individual part attributed to him of having caused simple injury on the person of Bimla, the circumstances qua him do not change with addition of offence under Section 307 IPC on account of injury attributed to the co-accused of the petitioner on the person of Amit.

¶23

In view of above circumstances, the petitioner can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail as he has joined investigation and has not been attributed any grievous injury with sharp edged weapon.

¶24

The petition is allowed. It is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner, he will be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the

¶25

¶26

CRM-M-1777 of 2013 (O&M)

¶27

conditions that he will join investigation as and when required and will not tamper with the evidence or hamper investigation in any manner. He will also not commit the similar offence of which he is accused of,

¶28

during the pendency of entire trial.

¶29

March 15, 2013. rka

¶30

(M.M.S. BEDI) JUDGE

¶31

Ravinder v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder 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

Vinod and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Paramjit Singh Pamma Alias Prince & Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Gyan Chand and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ranjana @ Ranjana Rani Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Dev Raj Poswal Vs State of Haryana

Prem Kaur Vs State of Punjab