Allowed

Karan Katpaliya v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Feb 2019CRM-M/2962/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The offenses included assault, obstruction, and attempted murder during a traffic stop incident where the petitioner allegedly threatened and drove over the police constable. Bail was ordered subject to furnishing a bond.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal/surety bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like amount.

Karan Katpaliya Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

228

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No.M-2962 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 26, 2019

Karan Katpaliya

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.Navdeep Singh, AAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.

¶12

¶13

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶14

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.871 dated 19.12.2018 under Sections 332, 353, 186 and 307 IPC, registered at Police Station DLF, Sector-29, Gurugram.

¶15

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

¶17

As per allegations in the FIR, Constable Pravinder Singh along with other police officials was on traffic duty. He gave signal to stop the car being driven by the petitioner. When the police party demanded the

¶18

VINEET GULATI 2019.02.27 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CRM No.M-2962 of 2019

¶20

-2-

¶21

documents of the car, the petitioner refused to produce the same, rather threatened that he will run over them by his car and thereafter, started moving his car, hit the complainant and dragged him on bonnet of the car for about 100 meters. The complainant has not suffered any injury dangerous to life.

¶22

The petitioner has been in custody since 19.12.2018. He is not required for custodial interrogation as he is in judicial custody. The trial of the case will take long time. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody till the disposal of the case.

¶23

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

¶24

February 26, 2019 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶25

VINEET GULATI 2019.02.27 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Karan Katpaliya v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Katpaliya 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

Sanjeev Kumar @ Johny Vs State of Punjab

Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Vipin Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Surender @ Sanjay Vs State of Haryana

Anil Rajput Vs State of Punjab

Kamal Singh Vs State of Punjab