Allowed

Mannu@ Gollu v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Mar 2017CRM-M/3526/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to the petitioner, who was apprehended as a driver in a murder case, noting no specific lethal role was attributed to him, allowing release on bond with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of the petitioner on regular bail on furnishing bond and surety, subject to conditions of attendance and no leaving the country without permission.

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

¶1

CRM-M-3526-2017

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CRM-M-3526 of 2017 Date of Decision: 01.03.2017

Mannu @ Gollu

....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana ....Respondent

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶10

Present: Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

¶11

Mr. Vikramjit Singh, Addl.A.G. Haryana.

¶12

¶13

SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

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.475 dated 12.6.2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) at Police Station Sadar, Karnal.

¶15

Heard.

¶16

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR. He was apprehended by the police on the suspicion that he was driver of motor cycle on which the assailants namely Monnu alias Khira and Pankaj came to the house of complainant and killed her husband.

¶17

Learned State counsel has argued that petitioner was apprehended on the basis of suspicion and he has suffered disclosure statement that he was driving motor cycle to carry Pankaj and Monnu alias Deepak Kumar 2017.03.02 18:11 Khira to the house of complainant and similar statement was, later on, made I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-3526-2017 -2-

¶19

by Pankaj. The petitioner was arrested on 14.6.2016. Challan against him has already been presented.

¶20

Keeping in view the fact that no specific role to kill husband of complainant has been attributed to the petitioner, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner Mannu alias Gollu is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, subject to following terms:-

¶21

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

¶22

(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 surety bond and proceed to procure his presence in accordance with law. In that eventuality the petitioner shall have to apply for bail afresh.

¶23

¶24

March 01, 2017 ( SURINDER GUPTA ) deepak JUDGE

¶25

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶26

Deepak Kumar 2017.03.02 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mannu@ Gollu v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mannu@ Gollu 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

Babu Ram Vs State of Haryana

Anil Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Harbans Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Sukhwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rajeev Katoch Vs State of Punjab

Rajinder Singh Vs State of Haryana