Allowed

Krishan @ Lala v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jul 2014CRM-M/18782/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of offences under Sections 332, 353, 341 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, making the interim bail absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail is accepted; interim bail is made absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Krishan @ Lala Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CRM No.M-18782 of 2014

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-18782 of 2014 Date of Decision:- 22.07.2014

Krishan @ Lala

.....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Satyawan Rathee, D.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State.

¶13

¶14

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶15

Petitioner-Krishan @ Lala son of Godhan, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him, vide FIR No.191 dated 05.05.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 332, 353, 341 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Manesar, District Gurgaon.

¶16

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

¶17

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 petition for anticipatory bail

¶18

Kumar Naresh 2014.07.30 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CRM No.M-18782 of 2014

¶20

-2-

¶21

deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶22

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on May 28, 2014:-

¶23

“Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that complainant Balbir Singh who is Constable in police, came in inebriated condition at the spot and molested Smt. Preeti. She raised hue and cry for help, then, many villagers gathered there and matter was reported to the police, where a criminal case was registered against him, vide FIR No. 192 dated 05.05.2014, under Sections 354-A and 506 IPC. Now, petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant in this case, to save his skin, to create a false defence and in order to wreak vengeance.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 22.07.2014. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of his arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of ` 25,000/- to his satisfaction.”

¶26

At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Davinder Singh, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. Moreover, all the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

¶27

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on

¶28

Kumar Naresh 2014.07.30 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶29

CRM No.M-18782 of 2014 -3-

¶30

merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner, by virtue of indicated order of this Court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶31

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail. At the same time, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this Court.

¶32

July 22, 2014 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE

¶33

Kumar Naresh 2014.07.30 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Krishan @ Lala v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan @ Lala 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

Randhir Singh @Dheera Vs State of Punjab

Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Surjit Singh Vs Balbir Kaur etc.

Sunny Vs State of Punjab

Rashpal Singh @ Baba Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

R.K. Singla Vs State of Punjab and Anr.