Bail petition under Section 439 IPC in a murder case rejected. Bench held that considering the nature of charges and recovery of weapon, petitioner is not entitled to bail pending trial.
Petition for bail under Section 439 IPC dismissed; petitioner to remain in custody pending trial.
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.
Criminal Misc. No. M-1164 of 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-1164 of 2014 Date of Decision : 21.01.2014
Mahesh @ Maheshu
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL
Present:Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana.
M. JEYAPAUL, J. (Oral)
The petitioner, Mahesh @ Maheshu, moves this petition seeking bail under Section 439 of Indian Penal Code in a case under Sections 148, 323, 506, 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was armed with an iron rod and attacked the complainant-Raj Kumar along with other accused and caused his death.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that call details did not indicate that the mobile of the petitioner was used at the time when the occurrence took place. He further submits that the name of the petitioner did not figure in the First Information Report. Only because of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused, the petitioner has been implicated, therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner, who has been in custody for the past six months, may be released on bail.
Learned AAG appearing for the State would submit that the Investigating Agency has collected information that the petitioner was present with his mobile at the scene of crime. It is his further submission
that the recovery of the iron rod was made at the instance of the petitioner. Rani Neetu 2014.01.24 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No. M-1164 of 2014
2
It is his further submission that the petitioner was in fact one of the persons, who were found at the scene of occurrence and attacked the deceased and caused injuries, which culminated in his death.
The trial is going to begin shortly. Recovery has been made from the petitioner. It cannot be said that no indication as regards role of the petitioner was found in the FIR. Complainant-Raj Kumar has categorically stated before his death that one Shishan along with three-four boys, who were armed with weapons, quarreled with him and caused injury to him.
Only during the course of trial, it would come to light whether the mobile alleged to be recovered from the accused was used at the scene of occurrence.
Considering the nature of charges against the petitioner and the stage of the case, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Dismissed.
21.01.2014 (M. JEYAPAUL) neetu JUDGE
Rani Neetu 2014.01.24 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner charged with murder, affray, and criminal conspiracy given the nature of charges and evidence against him.
Whether the recovery of an iron rod from the petitioner and its alleged use in the crime precludes release on bail.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahesh @ Maheshu
State of Haryana
M. JEYAPAUL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
