Allowed

Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Goyat v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jan 2018CRM-M/32290/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in a case involving Sections 307, 307 IPC, SCTST Act, and Arms Act. Court granted bail noting no injury alleged, investigation complete, and custody served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered released on regular bail on furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Goyat Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

CRM-M-32290-2017 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-32290-2017 (O&M) Date of decision: - 18.01.2018

¶5

Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Goyat

.....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

.....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU

¶11

Present: Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Vikas Malik, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.107 dated 28.04.2017, registered under Sections 307, 34, 120-B IPC; Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Julana, District Jind.

¶16

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 29.04.2017 and there is no allegation that he has caused any injury and even charges have also been framed on 14.11.2017.

¶17

The above factual aspect of the matter has not been disputed by the learned State counsel.

¶18

Naresh Kumar 2018.01.18 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CRM-M-32290-2017 (O&M)

¶20

-2-

¶21

In view of the fact that there is no allegation against the petitioner regarding causing of any injury to the injured and investigation of the case is over. The final conclusion of trial is to take a long time and thus, it would be just and appropriate if the concession of bail is granted to the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner is in custody since 29.04.2017 and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars. Therefore, in view of the abovesaid circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is accepted. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

¶22

( MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU) January 18, 2018 JUDGE naresh.k

¶23

Whether reportable? No Whether reasoned/speaking? No

¶24

Naresh Kumar 2018.01.18 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Goyat v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Goyat 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

Badal Singh & Anr. Vs Chabila & Ors.

Badal Singh & Anr. Vs Davender & Ors.

Badal Singh & Anr. Vs Basti & Ors.

Harjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jagriti Sikka Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Shiv Darshan Vs State of Haryana