Allowed

Rajdeep Singh @ Ginni v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Dec 2013CRM-M/35514/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought regular bail for offences under Sections 148, 307, 323, 324, 325 and 326 read with Section 149 IPC. Court allowed bail after concluding further incarceration was unjustified as the accused was not attributed the most serious injury.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to be released on bail during pendency of trial subject to furnishing bail bonds.

Rajdeep Singh @ Ginni Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM-M-35514-2013 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-35514-2013 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: December 20, 2013

¶6

Rajdeep Singh @ Ginni

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶12

Present: Mr. Aman Dhir, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Chetan Sharma, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent.

¶14

Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶15

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.

¶16

Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, Rajdeep Singh @ Ginni, son of Jagroop Singh, resident of Ward No. 7, Mandi Dabwali, Tehsil Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 323, 324, 325 and 326 read with Section 149, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 133, dated 29.4.2013, registered at Police Station, City, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa.

¶17

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been

¶18

Kapoor Prashant 2013.12.21 15:28 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶19

CRM-M-35514-2013 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

attributed a grievous injury by means of rod on the left hand of the injured; that from the perusal of the MLR and other related medical papers, the mischief of Section 307, IPC, is not attracted in the present case; that in the impugned order, it has wrongly been averred by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, that the petitioner is involved in so many other cases; in fact, he is involved in one more case only; and that the petitioner is behind the bars from 16.6.2013.

¶22

Leaned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Jit Ram of Police Station, City, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa, submits that except for one more case, which was registered after the present FIR, the petitioner is not involved in any other case. He further concedes that the injury attracting the mischief of Section 307, IPC, has not been attributed to the petitioner, rather he had caused the grievous injury on the left hand of Hardeep Singh @ Happy.

¶23

Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, but when a question was put as to why further custodial interrogation or incarceration of the petitioner is required, then he could not justify the ground. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.

¶24

Concededly, the petitioner has not been attributed the injury attracting the mischief of Section 307, IPC. He is behind

¶25

Kapoor Prashant 2013.12.21 15:28 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶26

CRM-M-35514-2013 (O&M)

¶27

¶28

the bars from 16.6.2013 and after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.), has already been submitted before the learned Court below and further the case was committed to the Court of Session, where the trial is going on.

¶29

In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, further incarceration of the petitioner is not justified and, as such, the present petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, Rajdeep Singh @ Ginni, son of Jagroop Singh, resident of Ward No. 7, Mandi Dabwali, Tehsil Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa, is allowed. He is ordered to be released on bail during pendency of the trial of the present case, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Sirsa. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner in any manner attempts to influence the prosecution witnesses, in that eventuality, the prosecution or the complainant would be free to move application for cancellation of bail.

¶30

December 20, 2013 Pkapoor

¶31

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE

¶32

Kapoor Prashant 2013.12.21 15:28 I attest to the accuracy of this order

Rajdeep Singh @ Ginni v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajdeep Singh @ Ginni 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Rohit Gupta Vs State of Punjab

Nirmal Singh @ Nimma Vs State of Punjab

Sushma Vs Roshan Lal

Vishav Rishi Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Priyanka and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.