Allowed

Amit Kumar v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC3 May 2017CRM-M/13286/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the bail petition of Amit Kumar, arrested under Sections 363 IPC, 506 IPC, and Section 6 POCSO Act, ordering his release on regular bail upon furnishing adequate bonds, noting that continued custody served no purpose.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to be released on regular bail on furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds.

Amit Kumar Vs State of Haryana — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CRM-M-13286-2017 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-14266-2017 in/and CRM-M-13286-2017 Date of Decision:- 03.05.2017

Amit Kumar

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present: Mr. HPS Ishar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Himmat Singh, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)

¶15

CRM-14266-2017

¶16

Heard.

¶17

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the hearing of main petition is preponed and is taken on today's board of this Court.

¶18

CRM-M-13286-2017

¶19

Present petition is for release of petitioner on regular bail in FIR No.42 dated 12.07.2016, under Sections 363, 506 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Woman, District Panchkula.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is in custody since 12.07.2016. Moreover, with regard to allegation under Section 363 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act is concerned, no role has been attributed to the

¶21

Naresh Kumar 2017.05.05 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and present petitioner. integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶22

CRM-M-13286-2017 (O&M) -2-

¶23

Learned State counsel, on instructions from investigating officer, has informed that out of total 19 witnesses, only three have been examined. Moreover, he is not disputing the contents of the above-said application.

¶24

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

¶25

The petitioner was arrested on 12.07.2016. Since then, he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. The final conclusion of trial will take a long time.

¶26

In view of above facts, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on her furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge/Duty Magistrate, Panchkula.

¶27

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, on merits in the trial of the main case, in any manner.

¶28

May 03, 2017		(RITU BAHRI )
naresh.k		JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes
	Whether reportable	No

¶29

Naresh Kumar 2017.05.05 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Amit Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar 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

Fatuni Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Manga Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Manga Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jasleen Kaur Vs Kirandeep Singh

Banita @ Buneeta Vs State of Punjab