Allowed

Balram and Anr. v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Sept 2013CRM-M/27391/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held the petition for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving Sections 307, 148, and 149 IPC. The court accepted the petition noting the lengthy trail ahead, no witnesses examined, and reliance on supplementary statements for charges. Ordered release on bail with suitable bonds.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Balram and Anr. Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No.M-27391 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-27391 of 2013 Date of Decision: 11.09.2013

¶5

Balram and another

.....Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Sagar Deswal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State.

¶13

¶14

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶15

Petitioners-Balram son of Mahabir and Amit son of Krishan, have preferred the instant petition for the grant of regular bail in a case registered against them along with their co-accused Abhay and eight others, vide FIR No.425 dated 08.12.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 148 read with Section 149 IPC, by the police of Police Station Sampla, District Rohtak, invoking the provisions of Section 439 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 help and after deep consideration

¶19

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.12 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

CRM No.M-27391 of 2013 -2-

¶21

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

¶22

The prosecution claimed that on 07.12.2012, all the eleven accused came at the spot. Accused-Abhay, Krishan, Parveen and Satish caught hold the complainant-Vilas and petitioner No.2-Amit inflicted two knife injuries on the left side of chest and waist. This case was initially registered against the eleven accused. It is not a matter of dispute that during the course of investigation eight persons were found innocent and were exonerated. After completion of the investigation, the final police report (challan) was submitted only against the petitioners and accusedAbhay. Concededly, name of Balram (petitioner No.1) is not mentioned in the FIR. He was subsequently involved on the basis of supplementary statement of complainant Vilas dated 10.02.2013 i.e. after more than about two months of the occurrence. Abhay (co-accused of the petitioner), was granted the concession of regular bail, by this Court, by way of order dated 18.07.2013 in Crl. Misc. No. M-11446 of 2013. (Annexure P-2).

¶23

Moreover, petitioner No.2-Amit was arrested on 09.01.2013. Whereas petitioner No.1-Balram was arrested on 24.02.2013. Since then they are in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served in further detaining them in jail. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. Since, not even a single witness has yet been examined by the prosecution, so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

¶24

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.12 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

CRM No.M-27391 of 2013

¶26

-3-

¶27

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant petition for regular bail is hereby accepted. The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶28

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case during trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present

¶29

petition for regular bail only.

¶30

September 11, 2013 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE

¶31

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.12 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Balram and Anr. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balram and Anr. 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

Bhagwan Dass Vs State of Haryana

Kulwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Roop Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Gurwinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Suba Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Deepo Vs State of Punjab