Allowed

Tarun & Anr. v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Dec 2013CRM-M/37111/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. No. M-37111 of 2013 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Single Judge sanctioned anticipatory bail to accused Tarun and Narender in a criminal case involving affray and attempted murder, noting they were not implicated in the serious section injuries.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; interim directions dated 06.11.2013 made absolute; petitioners to join investigation when required.

Tarun & Anr. Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Criminal Misc.No. M-37111 of 2013

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.No. M-37111 of 2013 Date of Decision: 17^th December, 2013

Tarun & Anr.

.. Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana

.. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr.Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr.Deepak Girhotra, AAG, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.

¶15

Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners Tarun and Narender who have been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 323, 325 and 427 read with Section 149, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.259 dated 18.11.2012, registered at Police Station, Chandhut, District Palwal.

¶16

Learned counsel contends that it is a case of version and cross-version; that as many as three persons from the petitioners' side have received injuries; that the petitioners were arrested for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 325 and 427 read with Section 149, IPC and granted bail vide order dated 25.04.2013; that Section 307, IPC, was ordered to be deleted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police after a detailed inquiry; that due to extraneous considerations, Section 307, IPC, has once again been invoked; that the injury attracting the mischief of Section 307, IPC, has not been attributed to the petitioners and, in fact, the same was allegedly caused by Bhagat Singh, a co-accused of the petitioners;

¶17

Sharma Seema 2013.12.17 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

{2}

¶19

Criminal Misc.No. M-37111 of 2013

¶20

that in compliance of the order dated 06.11.2013, the petitioners have joined the investigation and are no more required for custodial interrogation by the Investigating Agency.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Rajender Pal, Police Station, Chandhut, District Palwal, very fairly concedes the injury attracting the mischief of Section 307, IPC, was caused by non-applicant Bhagat Singh, a co-accused of the petitioner. He further concedes that the petitioners have joined the investigation and are no more required for custodial interrogation by the Investigating Agency. He also concedes that it is a case of version and cross-version and three persons from the petitioners' side had received injuries.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

¶23

It is a case of version and cross-version. Three persons from the petitioners' side had received multiple injuries. The injury attracting the mischief of Section 307, IPC, has not been attributed to the petitioners. The petitioners have joined the investigation and are no more required for custodial interrogation by the Investigating Agency.

¶24

Keeping in view totality of the facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed. Interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 06.11.2013 are made absolute.

¶25

The petitioners shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do and abide by all the conditions laid down in Section 438(2), Cr.P.C.

¶26

December 17, 2013 Sharma Seema2013.12.17 17:27seema I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

(Naresh Kumar Sanghi) Judge

Tarun & Anr. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun & 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

Manoj Kumar Vs Sheetal and Ors.

Manoj Kumar and Ors. Vs Sheetal and Ors.

Mamta Rani Vs State of Punjab

Gurpreet Kaur Vs Bikramjit Singh and Ors.

Maninder Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Balkar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.