Dismissed

Parveen v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Apr 2015CRM-M/11335/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parveen filed a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. alleging he was wrongly kept in jail despite being declared innocent during investigation. The bench rejected the plea, holding that since the fatal injury was specifically attributed to him, the case was fatal and bail could not be granted.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed on the ground that fatal injury was specifically attributed to the petitioner during investigation.

Parveen Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Sr. No.: 256

¶3

Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-11335 of 2015 (O & M) Date of Decision: April 23, 2015

Parveen

..... PETITIONER

VERSUS

State of Haryana

..... RESPONDENT(S)

. . .

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH

¶11

. . .

¶12

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

. . .

¶16

PRESENT : - Mr. Parveen Kumar Rohilla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶17

Mr. C.S. Bakhshi, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

¶18

. . .

¶19

Jaspal Singh, J

¶20

This petition has been preferred under Section 439

¶21

Cr.P.C. by Parveen seeking bail in case FIR No.35 dated

¶22

February 6, 2013 under Sections 302, 323, 325 IPC and Section

¶23

25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Panipat.

¶24

AVIN KUMAR 2015.04.28 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

¶25

Crl. Misc. No.M-11335 of 2015 [2]

¶26

Inter-alia, contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that during investigation, petitioner was found innocent and his name was mentioned in Column No.2 of report presented under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Subsequently, on the basis of an application moved by prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C., petitioner alongwith co-accused Rajesh & others, were summoned to face trial under Sections 148, 323, 325, 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC vide order dated January 17, 2014 (Annexure P-3). Co-accused of petitioner namely Rajesh has already been granted concession of pre-arrest bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated April 7, 2014 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-4284 of 2014. Case of present petitioner is on similar footing.

¶27

It has further been contended that petitioner surrendered before Trial Court on April 29, 2014 and thereafter, he applied for bail but was declined. Trial is not likely to conclude in near future. Thus, petitioner deserves concession of bail.

¶28

Per contra, learned State counsel has submitted that petitioner does not deserve concession of bail as fatal injury has been attributed to petitioner and his case cannot be equated with his co-accused Rajesh.

¶29

AVIN KUMAR 2015.04.28 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

¶30

Crl. Misc. No.M-11335 of 2015 [3]

¶31

This Court has given an anxious thought to submissions made by learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

¶32

A perusal of FIR transpires that injury No.2 which proved fatal to Ram Chander has been specifically attributed to petitioner, alleged to have been inflicted by him with a knife on right side of his chest. It is very surprising that a person who has been specifically attributed injury which proved fatal has been declared innocent during investigation which raises eye-brows qua investigation. Since an injury which proved fatal, has been attributed to petitioner, thus, he does not deserve concession of bail.

¶33

Dismissed.

¶34

(Jaspal Singh) April 23, 2015 Judge avin

¶35

AVIN KUMAR 2015.04.28 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

Parveen v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen 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 @ Gopi Vs State of Punjab

Pooja and Another Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Others

Chhinder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Nizamudeen Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Pritpal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ramandeep Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.