Allowed

Satbir v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Sept 2013CRM-M/21067/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC regarding a suicide case, the Court allowed regular bail for the petitioner Satbir. Released without expressing an opinion on merits, citing the extended period of incarceration and lack of State allegations regarding absconding or witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted to the petitioner on the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate, Panipat.

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

¶1

CRM No.M-21067 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-21067 of 2013 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: September 25, 2013.

¶6

Satbir

¶7

..........PETITIONER(s).

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

State of Haryana

¶10

..........RESPONDENT(s).

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶12

Present: Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Raja Sharma, A.A.G. Haryana.

¶14

¶15

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶16

This is an application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.1261 dated 21.10.2011 under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station City Panipat, District Panipat.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through

¶18

the record.

¶19

It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been continuing in custody since 31.01.2012 and though

¶20

Mehta Sachin 2013.09.27 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH

¶21

CRM No.M-21067 of 2013

¶22

-2-

¶23

investigation completed, challan filed, part evidence recorded and however, trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. It is further contended that marriage of petitioner with deceased was solemnized on 26.12.1993 and two children were born out of the wedlock. Further contended that wife of petitioner committed suicide in the year 2011 and that petitioner and his son i.e. son of deceased besides father of petitioner have been implicated in this case.

¶24

This factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for the State, on instruction from ASI Umar Khan.

¶25

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

¶26

Hence, keeping in view the period of incarceration of the petitioner and the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, the instant application for regular bail filed on behalf of petitioner Satbir is allowed.

¶27

Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Panipat.

¶28

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 25, 2013. JUDGE Sachin M.

¶29

Mehta Sachin 2013.09.27 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH

Satbir v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satbir 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

Anil Vs State of Haryana

Balbir Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Jasjit Singh @ Lucky Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Another

Iqbal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Suresh Kumar @ Bablu & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Mohinder Kaur Jassal Vs State of Punjab & Anr.