Dismissed

Mukesh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC30 Jan 2013CRM-M/2869/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Mukesh in connection with FIR allegations under IPC Sections 302, 307 and Arms Act Section 25. The Court held that mere non-filing of a charge sheet by the police does not entitle the petitioner to anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed.

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

¶1

-1-

¶2

Crl.M.No.M-2869 of 2013(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl.M.No.M-2869 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: January 30, 2013

Mukesh

.....Petitioner

The State of Haryana

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Surinder Dagar, Advocate for the complainant.

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

Crl.M.No.5478 of 2013

¶15

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

Crl.M.No.M-2869 of 2013

¶17

The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.1, dated 5.1.2012, under Sections 302, 307, 34 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Chandhat, District Palwal, Haryana.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, vide which application filed on behalf of the petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

¶19

Brief allegations against petitioner-accused are that he alongwith co-accused while armed with deadly weapons including fire-arms attacked the complainant and other persons accompanying him after getting down from two vehicles and started firing upon them with their respective weapons. Present petitioner -accused was allegedly armed with a pistol. As per version given in the FIR by Pardeep Singh, he also fired a shot from his country made pistol at Sandeep.

¶20

-2-

¶21

Crl.M.No.M-2869 of 2013(O&M)

¶22

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioneraccused that he was found innocent by the police and was not challaned and only co-accused Jagbir and Anup were challaned. Further submitted that he has been summoned by learned trial Court to face trial alongwith the accused already facing trial by allowing the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that moreover as per statement given by injured-Sandeep, it was co-accused Jagbir, who fired a shot at him.

¶23

On the other hand, it has been stated by learned counsel for the complainant, who appeared of his own, that Sandeep had sustained as many as three injuries. He has also drawn my attention towards medico legal report of Sandeep, perusal of which shows that he had received three injuries.

¶24

There are serious allegations against petitioner-accused. He was also armed with a country-made pistol as per statement given by Pardeep Singh on the basis of which FIR was lodged. He also fired a shot from his country made pistol at Sandeep. Even as per version given by Sandeep, all the accused including the petitioner started firing at them though he specifically deposed that co-accused Jagbir also fired a shot at him. Hence, merely on the ground that police did not file challan against the present petitioner, it cannot be said that he is entitled for concession of anticipatory bail.

¶25

Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitionerMukesh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶26

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

¶27

30.1.2013

¶28

meenu

Mukesh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh 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

Shamsher Singh Vs Raj Kaur and Anr.

Raj Singh Ahlawat Vs State of Haryana

Kulwinder Kaur Alias Kindu Bhullar Vs State of Punjab

Jatinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Naveen Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Surmodeen and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.