Allowed

Sahood v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Nov 2020CRM-M/33405/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in a criminal case involving waylaying and snatching. The court observed that the matter was amicably resolved between the closely related parties, who had no objection to the petitioner's release, subject to furnishing bail bonds to the concerned magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court/magistrate.

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

¶1

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh

¶2

CRM-M-33405-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 5.11.2020

Sahood

… Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

¶9

Present:Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Karan Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

¶11

Ms. Reena, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶12

(Proceedings conducted through video conferencing)

¶13

¶14

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral)

¶15

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered against him vide FIR No.319, dated 8.7.2020, Police Station Nuh, District Nuh, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 379-A, 506 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act.

¶16

The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Mubeen Ahmed wherein it is alleged that on 6.7.2020 when the complainant was proceeding from his village Khedla to Jogipur along with his wife on a motorcycle, then they were waylaid by 6 persons who had come on motorcycles and that while one of them pointed a pistol towards the complainant, the other snatched a ‘gold hansli’ weighing about 20 grams worn by complainant’s wife and also snatched an amount of `2800/- from the pocket of the complainant.

¶17

MOHAN SINGH 2020.11.05 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

- 2 - CRM-M-33405-2020 (O&M)

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR came to be lodged under some misunderstanding which has now been resolved and that the complainant has no objection for grant of bail.

¶20

Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and there are serious allegations against the accused, no case for grant of bail is made out.

¶21

Ms. Reena, Advocate, has today put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and has endorsed the fact that the petitioner has indeed compromised the mater with the complainant and that the complainant does not have any objection for release of the petitioner on bail.

¶22

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case especially that the matter is stated to have been amicably resolved amongst the parties who are otherwise stated to be closely related, the petition is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶23

November 5, 2020	(GURVIN	DER SINGH GILL)
mohan		JUDGE
Whether speaking /reasoned	Yes / No
Whether Reportable	Yes / No

¶24

MOHAN SINGH 2020.11.05 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sahood v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahood 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

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kewal Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Gurmandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Dara @ Teeta Vs State of Punjab

Darshan Singh Vs Hdfc Bank and Another

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Punjab