Allowed

Parveen v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Oct 2013CRM-M/22104/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed regular bail to the petitioner in a case involving kidnapping, abduction, and sexual intercourse. The court noted the petitioner faced charges of kidnapping and abduction but not rape, and was in custody since January 24, 2013. No risk of absconding was found.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted to the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate, Bhiwani.

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

¶1

CRM No.M-22104 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-22104 of 2013 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: October 24, 2013.

¶6

Parveen

¶7

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

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

State of Haryana

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

Present: Mr. Bhoop Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Pawan Singh, D.A.G. Haryana.

¶14

¶15

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶16

This is an application for regular bail filed under Section 439

¶17

of the Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.17 dated 22.01.2013 under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(g), 506 read with Section 34 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani (initially FIR was lodged under Section 363, 364 read with Section 34 of IPC).

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through

¶19

the record.

¶20

Mehta Sachin 2013.10.25 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH

¶21

CRM No.M-22104 of 2013

¶22

-2-

¶23

It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no allegation of rape against the present petitioner and the same are against co-accused Sunil and Raju. It is further contended that even charge framed against the present petitioner is for the offences under Sections 363/366-A read with Section 34 IPC and Section 120-B of IPC. It is further submitted that petitioner has been continuing in custody since 24.1.2013. It is further contended that prosecutrix has already been examined and she has not supported the prosecution case.

¶24

This factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for the State, on instruction from SI Tek Ram.

¶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 Parveen is allowed.

¶27

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

¶28

October 24, 2013. Sachin M.

¶29

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE

¶30

Mehta Sachin 2013.10.25 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH

Parveen v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen 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

Harjeet Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Lakhwinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Charan Singh Jaswal & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Bhupinder Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Nirmal Singh Vs Gurdeep Singh

Sumer Chand & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.