Allowed

Sunil Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Sept 2013CRM-M/27016/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 323, 324, 506 IPC. Court noted they joined investigation, no prior criminal record, and offences are triable by Magistrate. Petition accepted; interim bail made absolute.

What did the court decide?

Instant petition for anticipatory bail accepted; interim bail made absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Sunil Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No.M-27016 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-27016 of 2013 Date of Decision:- 06.09.2013

¶5

Sunil Kumar and others

.....Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Sandeep Singh Jattan, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. R.P.S. Sidhu, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

¶13

¶14

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶15

Petitioners-Sunil Kumar son of Des Raj, his father Des Raj and Vishal @ Golu son of Gurdial Singh, have directed the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.71 dated 08.06.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC (the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC was later on added), by the police of Police Station Sadar Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶16

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going

¶18

through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the

¶19

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.12 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

CRM No.M-27016 of 2013

¶21

¶22

entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶23

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on August 19, 2013: -

¶24

“Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that all the petitioners were arrested, interrogated and were released on bail in the instant case, which was initially registered against them under Sections 323, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The argument is that subsequently an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC, was later on added, after a gap of period of 1½ months, from the date of occurrence and now the petitioners again apprehend their arrest by the police.

¶25

Heard.

¶26

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 06.09.2013. Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of their arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit them to bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of ` 25,000/- each to his satisfaction.”

¶27

At the very outset, learned counsel stated at the bar that the petitioners have joined the investigation on 24.08.2013 and there is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. Even the Investigating Officer is not present to controvert the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners. Moreover, all the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. The conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

¶28

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioners by this Court, by virtue of order dated August 19, 2013, is hereby made absolute,

¶29

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.12 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶30

CRM No.M-27016 of 2013

¶31

¶32

subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶33

Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this respect.

¶34

September 06, 2013 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE

¶35

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.12 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Sunil Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar & Ors. 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

Baldev Singh @ Tita Vs State of Punjab

Jit Singh Vs State of Pb.

Raj Kaur @ Rani Vs State of Punjab

Shakti Arora Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Pishora Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gurmail Singh Vs State of Punjab