Allowed

Vicky v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Sept 2018CRM-M/20077/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge granted regular bail to the petitioner in a murder and armed offence case. The court held that the petitioner was implicated solely on a self-contradictory disclosure statement with no evidentiary value and released him subject to bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Vicky Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. M-20077 of 2018 Date of decision: 06.09.2018

Vicky

..Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

..Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶9

Present: Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG, Haryana for the respondent -State.

¶11

¶12

Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

¶13

The present petition has been filed by petitioner-Vicky under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.265 dated 15.10.2017 registered under Sections 148, 149, 302, 307, 324 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Barauda, District Sonepat, Haryana.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a young person and has been implicated in the case on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused whereas neither any role has been attributed to him nor any allegation is there against him. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner cannot be connected with the weapon i.e., country made pistol. The stand of the co-accused is self contradictory as it has been mentioned in the disclosure statement that the main accused used

¶15

the country made pistol purchased by him from the State of UP whereas it

¶16

NEETU RANI 2018.09.10 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶17

Criminal Misc. No. M-20077 of 2018 2

¶18

has come in the statement of the co-accused that the weapon was purchased by him from the present petitioner. Even no evidence is on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged commission of offence. The petitioner is in custody since 24.11.2017.

¶19

Learned State counsel has not disputed the custody period and other submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have also perused the contents of the FIR and other documents available on the file.

¶21

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and by considering that the petitioner is in custody since 24.11.2017; the petitioner has been implicated in the case on the basis of disclosure statement, which has no evidentiary value; no evidence has been collected during investigation to prove as to whether the country made pistol belongs to the petitioner; the trial may take time to conclude and no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner (Vicky) is directed to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶22

06.09.2018 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE

¶23

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes

¶24

NEETU RANI 2018.09.10 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Vicky v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vicky 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

Anuj Vs State of Haryana

Ravinder Singh Vs State of Haryana

Shamsher Vs State of Haryana

Jagat Pal @ Jagat Singh Vs State of Haryana

Azam Khan @ Shallu Vs State of Punjab

Palo Vs State of Punjab