HC considers a bail petition regarding an FIR for murder and grievous hurt. It grants bail to the petitioner on dual bonds, noting no protest against earlier bail and delays caused by his absence were not crucial.
Release of the petitioner on bail on furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-33750 of 2012 (O & M) Date of Decision: January 22, 2013
Anil Kumar
..... PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
| CORAM : PRESENT :- |
HON'BLE MR. JU Mr. K.D.S. petitioner. |
STICE VIJE . . . Hooda, |
NDER SINGH Advocate, |
MALIK for |
the |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mr. Sagar |
Deswal, | Assistant | Advo | cate | |
| General, Har Lamba, Advo |
yana, assi cate, for th |
sted by Ms. e complainan |
Mon t. |
isha |
. . .
Vijender Singh Malik, J (Oral)
Anil Kumar, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.15 dated 24.1.2011 registered at Police Station, Sadar, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 506, 120-B, 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was earlier granted bail in this case by the Additional
Crl. Misc. No.M-33750 of 2012 [2]
Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide order dated 5.4.2011. According to him, the petitioner fell ill on 2.9.2012 and got himself admitted at Raj Nursing Home, Ballabgarh. According to him, on 3.9.2012, an application was moved before the trial court, on behalf of the petitioner for exemption of his personal appearance, which was declined and warrant of arrest had been issued to secure his presence. Learned counsel further submits that empowered with the warrant of arrest, the police approached the nursing home and got the petitioner discharged and took him in custody. The petitioner is said now to be in custody since 3.9.2012.
Learned counsel for the State, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, submits that the petitioner is not entitled to bail because he is issuing threats to the witnesses, on account of which security has been provided to the witnesses. He further submits that the petitioner had refused to get his ailment investigated by the doctor.
Alongwith the aforesaid two reasons for which bail is sought to be declined, there are other reasons which show that bail should be granted to the petitioner. Firstly, no application for cancellation of bail was ever filed by the prosecution against the petitioner. Secondly, the petitioner is in custody since 3.9.2012. Thirdly, an application was filed under
Crl. Misc. No.M-33750 of 2012 [3]
Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Roop Singh Nagar and in the petition filed by him before this Court, the operation of that order stands stayed, and the trial would be delayed on that account.
The document, Annexure P-4, mentions that the patient refused for investigation. It was the day when the police approached the nursing home for the arrest of the petitioner and it may be on account of this urgency that investigation was not possible. Recording of the evidence in the case was also not delayed on account of absence of the petitioner on that day because on the date fixed, supplementary challan stood filed and request was made for supplying the copies thereof.
Looking into all these circumstances, I find the petitioner to be entitled to one more chance to be on bail during trial of this case. In these circumstances, I accept the petition and order release of the petitioner on bail on his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
(Vijender Singh Malik) January 22, 2013 Judge avin
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail after having been in custody due to refusal of investigation.
Whether the threats to witnesses and failure to get ailment investigated are sufficient to deny bail.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil Kumar
State of Haryana
Vijender Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
