Allowed

Mohd. Waseem and Another v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Apr 2014CRM-M/12172/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed pre-arrest bail petition where petitioners were in custody since March 2013. Court noted investigation delay due to inquiries and granted bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bond/surety with conditions not to commit similar offence, threaten complainant/witnesses, or tamper with evidence.

Mohd. Waseem and Another Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CRM M-12172 of 2014

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶4

CHANDIGARH.

¶5

CRM M-12172 of 2014

¶6

Date of Decision: April 25, 2014

¶7

Mohd. Waseem and another

…..Petitioners

Vs.

State of Punjab

…..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

¶13

-.-

¶14

Present:Mr.K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶15

Mr.Mikhail Kad, DAG, Punjab.

¶16

-.-

¶17

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶18

Petitioners seek the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Waheed Ahmed alleging that on February 22, 2014 he was stopped by Iftikar who started abusing and giving fist blow on his person. He was later on joined by his sons i.e. the petitioners who also started giving fist blows to the complainant on various parts of the body. The allegations of extortion are against non-petitioner Babli who instigated the petitioners and their co-accused to abduct the complainant. Mohd.

¶19

Gupta Sanjay 2014.04.26 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶20

CRM M-12172 of 2014

¶21

[2]

¶22

Anwar and others also came on the spot. They abused and threatened the complainant.

¶23

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for the complainant, besides the learned State counsel. It is an admitted fact that it is not a case of any grievous injury but the complainant had been waylaid and assaulted.

¶25

Counsel for the complainant has contended that the other accused, namely, Mohd. Anwar and Gulam Mohd. are yet to be arrested and that an inquiry regarding the role attributed to each of the accused is pending.

¶26

Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, without expression of any opinion on merits, it is sufficient to observe that the petitioners have been in custody w.e.f. March 11, 2013. The investigation is not likely to be completed in near future on account of certain inquiry having been initiated.

¶27

In view of the above circumstances, the petition is allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to the condition that they will not commit the similar offence of which they are accused of during the pendency of the trial and will not make any attempt to threaten

¶28

Gupta Sanjay 2014.04.26 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶29

CRM M-12172 of 2014 [3]

¶30

the complainant or the witnesses and will not make any attempt to tamper with the evidence.

¶31

April 25, 2014 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE

¶32

Gupta Sanjay 2014.04.26 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Mohd. Waseem and Another v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Waseem and Another v. State of Punjab

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

Vicky Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Gurpal Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sanjay Goel Vs State of Punjab

Charan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sandip Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab