Allowed

Manjeet v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Apr 2014CRM-M/6615/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. concerning offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC was accepted. The court held that further detention served no useful purpose as the petitioner had no prior criminal history and no prosecution witness had been examined yet. Bail was granted upon furnishing bonds to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

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

Manjeet Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CRM-M No. 6615 of 2014

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-6615 of 2014 Date of decision : 22.04.2014

Manjeet

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

..Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Naveen Sheoran, Advocate for Mr. Surender Deswal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. H.S. Deol, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the State.

¶13

Mr. Bijender Dhankhar, Advocate for the complainant.

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

Petitioner-Manjeet son of Jora Singh, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of regular bail, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C., in a case registered against him along with his other main co-accused namely Neeraj and Rinku, vide FIR No.353 dated 19.12.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Rai, Sonepat. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through

¶18

the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over

¶19

Sumit Kumar 2014.04.23 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

-2-

¶21

CRM-M No. 6615 of 2014

¶22

the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶23

Concisely, the prosecution claimed that petitioner Manjeet has caught hold of Navdeep whereas his main co-accused Neeraj and Rinku caused injuries to him with knives. All the allegations of causing injuries to the complainant are assigned to main accused Neeraj and Rinku, who are in custody (non-petitioners). Moreover, the occurrence originate at a spur of the moment on trivial issue. In that eventuality, as to whether the provision of vicarious liability as contemplated under Section 34 IPC is attracted to the facts of the present case against the petitioner or not, inter alia, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court.

¶24

Be that as it may, petitioner was arrested on 08.01.2014. Since then, he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. Since not even a single witness has yet been examined by the prosecution, so, the 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 of main case, the instant petition for regular bail is accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶26

Sumit Kumar 2014.04.23 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

-3-

¶28

CRM-M No. 6615 of 2014

¶29

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

¶30

22.04.2014 ( M ehinder S ingh S ullar) sumit.k Judge

¶31

Sumit Kumar 2014.04.23 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Manjeet v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjeet 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

Ashwani Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Manjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jagpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sandeep Kumar @ Kala Vs State of Haryana

Bikramjit Singh Verma @ Vicky Vs State of Punjab

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab