Allowed

Soran v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Jul 2018CRM-M/24440/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second regular bail application, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted bail to the petitioner Soran. The court held that the statement of a co-accused is not admissible evidence against him and no other substantial evidence existed. Considering the trial's delay, the petitioner was released on regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Bhiwani.

Soran Vs State of Haryana — Punjab & Haryana HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

-1-

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. M-24440 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-24440 of 2017 Date of decision : July 11, 2018

¶5

Soran

¶6

....Petitioner

¶7

versus State of Haryana ....Respondent

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh

¶9

Present : Mr. RS Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶10

Mr. Siddarth Sanwaria, DAG, Haryana for the State assisted by Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the complainant

¶11

Fateh Deep Singh, J. (Oral)

¶12

The allegations against Soran petitioner in this second regular bail application are that on 19.12.2015 report was got lodged by complainant Ved Singh that he along with his brother Narender Prabhkar deceased were present in the hospital at Bhiwani taking care of their father who was taking treatment when around 6/6.30 PM a phone was received by the deceased who thereafter got downstairs of the hospital and thereafter went missing. It was on suspicion of the complainant that since his brother since deceased Narender Prabhakar had earlier filed a case against Subhash Master, Dharampal Soni, Chandu Lal and Mahender Chaudhary Deed Writer in a court on account of which Subhash Master has been giving

¶13

Dalbir Singh Tiwana 2018.07.13 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

¶14

Criminal Misc. No. M-24440 of 2017 -2-

¶15

threats to his brother through Ashok Chiraya that either withdraw the case or else they will eliminate him and that earlier Dharampal has manhandled the deceased in a court at Delhi and also threatened him leading to the registration of the present case. A putrefied dead body was recovered which was claimed to be of Narender Parbhakar deceased on the basis of teeth identification by the complainant who also prayed for holding DNA test which was never done. It was subsequent on the statement of co-accused Sunil made on 21.12.2015, name of the petitioner has cropped up leading to his arrest on 22.12.2015.

¶16

Mr. RS Rai, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate has vociferously argued that there is not even an iota of evidence against the petitioner as he is neither named in the FIR and mere statement of co-accused is not admissible under the law.

¶17

The bail is sought to be opposed by learned State counsel assisted by counsel for the complainant on the grounds of seriousness of the allegations and the recovery of the Scarf of the deceased and has submitted that the trial is at fag end as only 10 witnesses of the prosecution remained to be examined.

¶18

Going through the submissions that the very legality, admissibility and acceptability of statement of co-accused qua the present petitioner is subject matter of the judicial adjudication and there being no other cogent substantial piece of evidence against the petitioner together with the fact that the petitioner is behind the bars since 22.12.2015 and the

¶19

Dalbir Singh Tiwana 2018.07.13 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

¶20

Criminal Misc. No. M-24440 of 2017 -3-

¶21

trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and no purpose will be served by retaining the petitioner in jail. Accordingly, he is ordered to be released on regular bail to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Bhiwani,

¶22

The present petition stands disposed off accordingly.

¶23

The observations made herein above shall not be binding on the trial court at the time of trial as these are purely for the disposal of the present bail application.

¶24

( Fateh Deep Singh ) July 11, 2018 Judge 'tiwana' Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No Whether Reportable ? Yes/No

¶25

Dalbir Singh Tiwana 2018.07.13 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

Soran v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soran 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

Sunder Pal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Bijender Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Vidya Wati and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

(O&M)v.K.Sharma Vs Poonam Sardana.

Sukhvir Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Country Colonisers Private Limited Vs Harvinder Jeet Singh and Others