High Court allowed regular bail for the petitioner in an FIR regarding robbery and arms offences, noting the petitioner has been in custody since March 2013 and there are no specific allegations of absconding or witness tampering.
Regular bail granted to the petitioner to be executed to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Karnal.
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.
CRM No.M-25073 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 25073 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: October 22, 2013.
Neetu
...... PETITIONER(s)
Versus
State of Haryana
...... RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sheokand, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Pawan Singh, DAG, Haryana.
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed for regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no.48 dated 03.03.2012, under Sections 392/511/307 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at police station Taraori, District Karnal.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal dismissing bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.
Singh Omkar 2013.10.24 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
CRM No.M-25073 of 2013
2
It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner-accused that he has been continuing in custody since 14.03.2013. It is further contended that even as per case of prosecution three masked persons entered the Bank and tried to commit robbery and that he bas been implicated in this case on the statement of co-accused. It is further submitted that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as no witness has been examined so far.
This factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for the State, on instruction from ASI Sher Singh. However, bail application has been opposed on the plea that petitioner is involved in some other cases as well.
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.
Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, the instant application for regular bail filed on behalf of Neetu is allowed.
Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Karnal.
October 22, 2013. ‘om’
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE
Singh Omkar 2013.10.24 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused in an FIR registered under Sections 392/511/307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Whether police report confirms involvement in other cases which would oppose bail.
Whether there are allegations of absconding or dissuading witnesses against the petitioner.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Neetu
State of Haryana
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
