Allowed

Raj Kumar @Raju v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC19 May 2014CRM-M/10616/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted regular bail to two petitioners arrested in a suicide abetting case under IPC 306 read with 34. The court found no useful purpose in further detention and ordered release upon furnishing bail bonds to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail on furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Raj Kumar @Raju Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-10616 of 2014 & -1Crl. Misc. No. M-11942 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

(1) Crl. Misc. No. M-10616 of 2014 Raj Kumar @ Raju ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent (2) Crl. Misc. No. M-11942 of 2014 Ravi Chauhan . .Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent

¶4

Date of decision: - 19.05.2014

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶6

Present: Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate, for petitioner in 1^st case.

¶7

Mr. Jagdeep S. Virk, Advocate for petitioner in 2^nd case.

¶8

Mr. H.S. Deol, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the State.

¶9

********

¶10

M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral)

¶11

As identical points for the grant of regular bail to the petitioners are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of indicated

¶12

criminal petitions, arising out of the same case/FIR, by means of this common order, to avoid the repetition of facts.

¶13

Kumar Naresh 2014.05.28 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶14

Crl. Misc. No. M-10616 of 2014 & Crl. Misc. No. M-11942 of 2014

¶15

-2-

¶16

Petitioners-Raj Kumar @ Raju son of Chandra and Ravi Chauhan son of Rajender, have preferred the instant separate petitions for the grant of regular bail, in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.130 dated 19.11.2013, on accusation of having committed an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Bapoli, District Panipat.

¶17

Notices of the petitions were issued to the State.

¶18

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petitions for regular bail deserve to be accepted in this context.

¶19

Tersely, the prosecution claimed that, the marriage of Poonam was solemnized with Rajesh (deceased). On 16.11.2013, there was exchange of words between husband and wife. Thereafter, Poonam had left her matrimonial home. On 17.11.2013 and 18.11.2013 petitioner Raj Kumar @ Raju (brother) and petitioner Ravi Chauhan (nephew) of Poonam, came to her matrimonial home and inquired about her. They abused and quarreled with her husband Rajesh. It was claimed that, on 18.11.2013 Rajesh committed suicide and the petitioners have abetted the commission of crime. Therefore, in that eventuality, as to whether the penal provision of Section 306 IPC, is attracted to the facts of the present case against the petitioners or not, inter alia , would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court.

¶20

Be that as it may, the petitioners were arrested on 22.11.2013. Since then, they are in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be

¶21

Kumar Naresh 2014.05.28 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶22

Crl. Misc. No. M-10616 of 2014 & Crl. Misc. No. M-11942 of 2014

¶23

-3-

¶24

served to further detain them in jail. There is no history of their previous involvement in any criminal case. The final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

¶25

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant petitions for regular bail are hereby accepted. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶26

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case during trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail only.

¶27

May 19, 2014 ( M ehinder S ingh S ullar ) naresh.k Judge

¶28

Kumar Naresh 2014.05.28 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Raj Kumar @Raju v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar @Raju 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

Manjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sohan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jaspal Singh Alias Jassu Vs State of Punjab

Kaushalya Vs State of Punjab

Harmesh Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sehdev Singh Vs State of Punjab