Allowed

Satbir v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Aug 2016CRM-M/18846/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted regular bail to the petitioner in an FIR under Sections 304-B, 34 IPC. The order was issued due to significant delay caused by the prosecution's failure to produce the complainant despite multiple court directions and warrant issuance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing local surety and adequate bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

Satbir Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-18846 of 2016

¶2

-1-

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-18846 of 2016 Date of Decision: 10.08.2016

Satbir

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

¶11

Present: Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Dimpla Jain, AAG, Haryana. ****

¶13

ANITA CHAUDHRY, J(ORAL)

¶14

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No. 370 dated 3.11.2015 registered at Police Station Sadar Gohana, District Sonepat under Sections 304-B, 34 IPC.

¶15

Zimni orders have been placed on record.

¶16

Petitioner is the father-in-law who is seeking bail in case registered under Section 304-B, 34 IPC. On the last hearing, counsel for the petitioner had stated that the complainant was not appearing in the Court.

¶17

The zimni orders show that PW Pardeep was present in the Court but request was made on behalf of the defence counsel and the witness was bound down for 23.5.2016. Complainant Partap Singh failed to appear despite service on 23.5.2016 and his warrants were issued.

¶18

On 1.6.2016 prosecution had been directed to produce the complainant in the trial Court on 13.7.2016.

¶19

There were directions by this Court also that the prosecution would produce the complainant on 13.7.2016. The complainant was

¶20

Gurpreet Singh Bhatia 2016.08.12 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶21

-2-

¶22

Crl. Misc. No. M-18846 of 2016

¶23

represented by a counsel but the complainant failed to appear and warrants were issued. The case was fixed for 9.8.2016 before the trial Court.

¶24

Counsel for the petitioner has informed that the complainant has failed to appear even yesterday.

¶25

The complainant side is delaying the trial and avoiding their appearance in the Court.

¶26

Without commenting anything on the merits of the case and considering the fact that the trial will take time to conclude, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing local surety and adequate bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

¶27

(ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE

¶28

August 10, 2016 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶29

Gurpreet Singh Bhatia 2016.08.12 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Satbir v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satbir 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukram Pal Vs State of Haryana

Mikel @ Kamma Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Nawab Singh Virk Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Bobby Vs State of Haryana

Kashmir Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.