Allowed

Rakesh @ Kabra v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Jan 2013CRM-M/35553/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed oral requests for correcting a clerical name error in a petition and granted regular bail to petitioners accused under IPC sections 395, 397, 412, 120-B and Arms Act section 25, relying on witness testimony and recovery status.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; petitioners ordered to execute personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- each with one surety in like amount.

Rakesh @ Kabra Vs State of Haryana — Punjab & Haryana HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-35553 of 2012 &

¶2

Crl. Misc. No.M-35778 of 2012

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

Crl. Misc. No.M-35553 of 2012 Date of decision : 07.01.2013

Rakesh @ Kabra

......Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana ...Respondent 2- Crl. Misc. No.M-35778 of 2012 Date of decision : 07.01.2013 Sandeep alias Dablu and anr. ......Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶14

Present: Mr.Kartar Singh Malik, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶15

Mr.Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana for the State.

¶16

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK , J.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has made an oral request for correction of name of Sandeep, who is petitioner no.1 in Crl. Misc. No.M-35778 of 2012. According to him, his name is Sandeep alias Dablu son of Dariya and inadvertantly his name is mentioned as Sandeep son of Dablu son of Dariya in the petition.

¶18

Crl. Misc. No.M-35553 of 2012 &

¶19

Crl. Misc. No.M-35778 of 2012

¶20

¶21

Keeping in view the fact that the mistake is inadvertant, I allow the correction as prayed for and order necessary correction to be made in the heading of the petition by describing Sandeep son of Dablu son of Dariya, petitioner no.1 as Sandeep alias Dablu son of Dariya.

¶22

Rakesh alias Kabra and two persons both named Sandeep, the petitioners have brought the above mentioned two petitions for regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 290 dated 11.12.2011 at Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, for an offence punishable under sections 395, 397, 412 and 120-B IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is a case of snatching of a truck. According to him, the said truck has been recovered from the possession of Rajender alias Kake, who has been granted bail by this court. According to him, no recovery of any stolen article has been effected from the petitioners. He has further submitted that Chander Bhan has been the only eye witness of the occurrence and he has been examined as PW-4 and he has denied the involvement of the petitioners in the crime. He has referred me in this regard to Annexure P-3, a copy of the statement of Chander Bhan,PW-4.

¶24

Crl. Misc. No.M-35553 of 2012 &

¶25

Crl. Misc. No.M-35778 of 2012

¶26

¶27

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, does not

¶28

dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He, however, opposed the bail plea.

¶29

The recovery of truck has been effected from a co-accused of the petitioner, who has been granted bail by this court. Regarding the petitioners, who are facing trial for the offence of decoity, the statement of Chander Bhan, PW-4 is there that they were not the persons, who snatched the truck from him.

¶30

In this view of the matter, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find the petitioners to be entitled to concession of bail. Hence, both the petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond each in a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.

¶31

January 07,2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE

Rakesh @ Kabra v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh @ Kabra 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

Inderpreet Kaur etc. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mandeep Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Daljeet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sandeep and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Hanpreet Kaur Vs State of U.T. Chandigarh

Jaspal Singh@ Jujpal@ Jajjo Vs State of Punjab