Allowed

Rajinder Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Mar 2017CRM-M/38931/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, a driver in a shooting case. Relying on the principle of parity with a co-accused who was already released, the Court ordered release subject to conditions, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail by furnishing a bail bond and surety bond to a competent Magistrate.

Rajinder Singh Vs State of Haryana — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CRM-M-38931 of 2016

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CRM-M-38931 of 2016 Date of Decision: 01.03.2017

¶5

Rajinder Singh ....Petitioner

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Haryana ....Respondent

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶9

Present: Mr. Ram Niwas Kush, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

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

¶11

Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the complainant.

¶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. 293 dated 02.10.2015 registered for offences punishable under Sections 285, 302, 307, 341, 120 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Adampur, District Hisar, in which petitioner was arrested on 10.10.2015.

¶15

Heard.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the FIR two persons, namely, Anil and Anoop have been named, who entered the shop of complainant and killed Vinod Kumar. Allegation against the petitioner is that he was in the car in which assailants had come. Parveen, who was driving the car has already been released on regular bail vide order dated 30.11.2016 passed by this Court in CRM-M-41370 of 2016.

¶17

Learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant

¶18

Jitender Kumar 2017.03.02 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH

¶19

CRM-M-38931 of 2016

¶20

-2-

¶21

while opposing the bail application submit that as per evidence collected by the police, weapon used in the crime was also purchased from maternal uncle of petitioner-Rajinder Singh.

¶22

On giving a careful thought to submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant, I find that petitioner is entitled to regular bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Parveen, who under similar circumstances was allowed benefit of regular bail.

¶23

As per case of prosecution, co-accused Parveen was driving the car and petitioner-Rajinder Singh was sitting in that car. So far as purchase of weapon from maternal uncle of petitioner is concerned, learned State counsel on enquiry submits on instructions from HC Pardeep that maternal uncle of petitioner-Rajinder Singh is not an accused in this case.

¶24

In view of above facts and applying the principle of parity but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and keeping in view the fact that conclusion of trial will take considerably long time, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner-Rajinder Singh 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 surety bond and proceed to procure his

¶27

Jitender Kumar 2017.03.02 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH

¶28

CRM-M-38931 of 2016

¶29

-3-

¶30

presence in accordance with law. In that eventuality the

¶31

petitioner shall have to apply for bail afresh.

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

Jitender Kumar 2017.03.02 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH

Rajinder Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Singh 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

Mannu@ Gollu Vs State of Haryana