Allowed

Chaman @ Pawan v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Feb 2017CRM-M/2652/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order granting regular bail to petitioner in a murder FIR under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Court allowed bail without expressing opinion on merits pending lengthy trial, imposing standard conditions including non-foreign travel and presence at hearings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bond to trial court subject to specified conditions.

Chaman @ Pawan Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CRM-M-2652 of 2017

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CRM-M-2652 of 2017 Date of Decision: 01.02.2017

¶5

Chaman @ Pawan ....Petitioner

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Haryana ....Respondent

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶9

Present: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajiv Kumar Trikha, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

¶11

SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶12

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 305 dated 16.11.2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 452, 302, 506 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and 25 of Arms Act, at Police Station Nangal Choudhary, District Mahendergarh.

¶13

Heard.

¶14

Notice of motion.

¶15

On asking of the court, Ms. Harpreet Kaur, AAG, Hayrana, who is present in the Court accepts notice and submits that intimation by Registry informing of fixation of the petition has already been received and record of the case is available with her.

¶16

The petitioner is facing trial in the present FIR for murder of Shri Ram, who was a witness in the case of murder of his grandsonSandeep.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident took place on the intervening night of 15/16.11.2015. The petitioner was arrested on 15.12.2015 on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. He is neither named in the FIR nor named by any of the witnesses.

¶18

Learned State counsel submits that the prosecution has already examined 22 out of 35 witnesses. She further submits that evidence against

¶19

Jitender Kumar 2017.02.03 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH

¶20

CRM-M-2652 of 2017

¶21

-2-

¶22

the petitioner is disclosure statement of co-accused and his own disclosure statement. He has not been named by any of the prosecution witnesses in Court. She, however, opposes the application on the ground that offence in this case is serious in nature and four persons of family were murdered.

¶23

As per version of occurrence given in the FIR, petitioner was not present at the time of occurrence. Eye-witnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution, have also not named him.

¶24

Keeping in view above facts but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and in view the fact that conclusion of trial will take considerably long time, the present petition is allowed. PetitionerChaman @ Pawan is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, subject to following terms:-

¶25

(a) The petitioner shall comply with the conditions mentioned in Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

¶26

(b) In the event of his absence on any date of hearing, the benefit of bail allowed to the petitioner shall stand withdrawn. The trial Court shall be competent to cancel his bail bond and sure bond and proceed to procure his presence in accordance with law. In that eventuality the petitioner shall have to apply for bail afresh.

¶27

¶28

February 01, 2017 ( SURINDER GUPTA ) jk JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶29

Jitender Kumar 2017.02.03 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH

Chaman @ Pawan v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaman @ Pawan 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

Ramesh Vij and Ors. Vs M/S J.C.T. Mills Steel Division

Sukhbir Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Babu Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Nitish @ Shanty and Ors. Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Mahender Singh Vs State of Haryana

Balwant Singh Vs Sukhwinder Singh and Others