The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed the petitioner's application for regular bail. The court held that no new facts emerged since the dismissal of the earlier bail petition on merits, rendering the appeal to change the venue in the cross-case irrelevant.
The petition for regular bail was dismissed; no principles of monetary relief are applicable.
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- 1999 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-1999 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision:24.01.2013
Dheeraj ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana .... Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:Mr. R.S. Sahota, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Crl. Misc. No.3801 of 2013
Miscellaneous application is allowed as prayed for.
Crl. Misc. No.M-1999 of 2013
Dheeraj, the petitioner has sought regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 75 dated 07.05.2011 at Police Station Tigaon, District Faridabad, for an offence punishable under sections 148, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307 and 506 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act.
Crl. Misc. No.M- 1999 of 2013 2
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the earlier petition for bail was withdrawn by the petitioner for approaching the session court for bail on the ground that in the cross-case summoning order has been made. According to him, in the cross-case summoning order now stands made, which shows that the occurrence took place in the house of the petitioner and not on the passage. According to him, this shows that the other party is aggressor. According to him, section 452 IPC is committed by the complainant and not by the petitioner and this fact is decisive in the matter.
Before the petitioner withdrew the earlier bail petition, his bail petition had been dismissed on merits by this court vide order dated 04.01.2012. Apart from the fact that a year has passed since then, no new fact has come on the record on the basis of which this plea can be entertained. The complaint on the part of the petitioner or a person on his side was already filed when the bail petition was dismissed on merits. On the basis of one side story, summoning order can always be made in such type of assault cases and summoning order itself would not mean anything.
Crl. Misc. No.M- 1999 of 2013 3
In these circumstances, I do not find any new ground for entertaining the petition for bail. Accordingly , the petition is dismissed.
January 24, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a fresh bail petition should be entertained after dismissal on merits without new facts.
Dheeraj
The State of Haryana
Vijender Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
