Allowed

Deenu v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Sept 2020CRM-M/15015/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in an offence under IPC Sections 148, 149, 302, 323, 452, 506, noting that the alleged injury attributed to him was not recorded in the Medical Legal Report. No useful purpose was served by keeping him in custody. Bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court were ordered.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court or Duty Magistrate. Order made without commenting on merits.

Deenu Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2020)

¶1

CRM-M No. 15015 of 2020 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

CRM-M No. 15015 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.9.2020

Deenu

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

¶11

Present: Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana assisted by ASI Kailash.

¶13

Mr. Ferry Sofat, Advocate for the victim-Vakeela.

¶14

¶15

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

¶17

The petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 0819 dated 18.10.2019 under Sections 148, 149, 302, 323, 452, 506 IPC registered at Police Station Nuh, District Nuh.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he has attributed an injury with farsa from its reverse side on the nose of Vakeela but as per the report of MLR, there is no injury on the nose of Vakeela. Learned counsel further submits that the occurrence took place on 14.10.2019 but the present FIR was registered on 18.10.2019 and there is delay of 04 days in lodging the FIR. It is also submitted that the present FIR is a counter-blast to FIR No. 0813 dated

¶19

GURPREET SINGH 2020.09.11 17:17I attest to the accuracy and15.10.2019 (Annexure P-2) got registered by the petitioner against the integrity of this document Chadigarh

¶20

CRM-M No. 15015 of 2020 (O&M) -2-

¶21

complainant party. He further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 30.12.2019.

¶22

Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the victim submits that there are four other cases registered against the petitioner and as per the disclosure statement, he has attributed injury to the deceased also. However, it has not been disputed that only one injury has been attributed to the petitioner.

¶23

In the present case, the injury attributed to the petitioner is on the nose of Vakeela, which has not been mentioned in the MLR and as far as the other cases against the petitioner are concerned, he is on bail in those cases. The petitioner has been in custody since 30.12.2019. The trial will take time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

¶24

Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

¶25

(HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE

¶26

September 11, 2020 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶27

GURPREET SINGH 2020.09.11 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chadigarh

Deenu v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deenu 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

Fardeen Vs State of Haryana

Harmanpreet Singh Randhawa Vs State of Punjab

Gorkha Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kuldeep Singh Sachdeva Vs Anurag Aggarwal

Sunita Arora Vs Anurag Aggarwal

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Haryana