Single judge granted regular bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in an FIR involving affray and attempted murder, admitting bail due to custody duration and partial bail for co-accuseds.
Petitioner admitted on regular bail upon furnishing bail bond/surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM-M-51976-2019 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-51976-2019 (O&M). Decided on: December 12, 2019.
Akhtar Ali
.. Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
PRESENT Mr.Satish Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms.Harpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
The present petition has been filed by one Akhtar Ali under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Cr.P.C.'), seeking regular bail in FIR No.175 dated 8.9.2017, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 307 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station, Chhappar, District Yamunanagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the present FIR there are total eight accused and the petitioner was not named in the FIR, however, he was nominated on the basis of the statement made by one injured namely Sanjiv Kumar. He has further argued that out of 8
1
RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2019.12.13 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-51976-2019 (O&M)
accused four have been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. It is further argued that even on the basis of statement made by the injured, no role is attributed to the petitioner with regard to the injuries sustained by the injured. It is further argued that the petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2019 and therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Satya Narayan, states that allegations are serious in nature and although the petitioner is not named in the FIR but his name was nominated on the basis of statement made by the injured to the effect that the petitioner had given leg blows on the chest of the injured.
Learned State counsel has drawn my attention to the medico-legal report (MLR) from where it is clearly discernible that the nature of the injuries are not not only wounds but also pain in the chest. He further submits that the injured remained admitted in ICU for about 10 days and he had to undergo various procedures.
It has been further submitted by the learned State counsel that the present petitioner had been evading to join investigation and it took about one month to arrest the petitioner.
In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was in fact a false statement made by injured Sanjiv Kumar as he himself was accused in another FIR registered under Section 376 IPC, regarding which the occurrence is of the same date i.e. 8.9.2017 and therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the statement made by the injured - Sanjiv Kumar cannot be relied upon. He further
2
RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2019.12.13 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-51976-2019 (O&M)
submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State counsel and have gone through the record of the case.
The petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2019 i.e. for the last more than 1½ months. Challan in this case has already been presented. MLR has been perused. Registration of another FIR under Section 376 IPC, against injured - Sanjiv Kumar on the same day would also be a relevant factor even if FIR under Section 376 IPC is dated 2.11.2019 but the date of occurrence is shown to be 8.9.2017 i.e. the same date on which the FIR in the present case has been registered.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to one report of a police officer in which it has been mentioned that the role which is attributable to the petitioner was giving of blows to Sanjiv Kumar. Apart from this, out of 8 accused who were figuring in the FIR, 4 have already been granted the concession of bail.
Considering the totality of the circumstance as aforesaid, I deem it a fit case to admit the petitioner on regular bail. Consequently, the petition is allowed. It is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on merits of the case.
December 12, 2019. (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI) raj arora JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No Whether reportable Yes / No
3
RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2019.12.13 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is fit to be admitted on regular bail given the nature of allegations, injury severity, and prior bail grants to co-accuseds.
Whether the petitioner should be released on bail after being in custody for over one and a half months.
Whether the statement of the injured victim relying on false implications can be relied upon for denying bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
AKHTAR ALI
STATE OF HARYANA
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
