Allowed

Harsh @ Harshit v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Aug 2020CRM-M/4390/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to the petitioner in a case involving Sections 148, 149, 307 IPC, 25 Arms Act, and others. The court noted hostile prosecution witnesses and the release of co-accused orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail pending trial upon furnishing bail and surety bonds.

Harsh @ Harshit Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2020)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRM-M-4390-2020 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-4390-2020 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: 07.08.2020

Harsh @ Harshit

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

.... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

¶12

Present: - Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Ms. Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana.

¶14

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Case has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing due to pandemic Covid-19.

¶16

Through this second petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., petitioner-Harsh @ Harshit, has prayed for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 485 dated 25.11.2018 registered under Sections 148, 149, 307, 323, 427, 452 and 506 IPC (Section 302 IPC added later on) and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station KUK, District Kurukshetra.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that petitioner was not named in the FIR. Star witnesses of the prosecution i.e. PW-1 to PW-3, namely; Satish Kumar, Hem Lata and Sagar, respectively, have turned hostile. Petitioner is in custody since 10.12.2018. Conclusion of trial may take long time. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in jail. Co-accused of petitioner,

¶18

RISHU KATARIA 2020.08.11 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-4390-2020 (O&M)

¶20

-2-

¶21

namely; Rahul Malik and another and Ravi @ Gorkha, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 12.02.2020 (Annexure P- 8) and 06.08.2020, passed in CRM-M Nos. 5209 and 7834-2020, respectively. Thus, treating the case of petitioner on the same parity, he may also be granted regular bail.

¶22

On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

Considering overall facts and circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, the petition is allowed. Consequently, petitioner-Harsh @ Harshit, is ordered to be released on bail pending trial, if, not required in any other case, on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty

¶24

Magistrate, concerned.

¶25

August 07, 2020 (RAMENDRA JAIN) rishu JUDGE

¶26

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶27

RISHU KATARIA 2020.08.11 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Harsh @ Harshit v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harsh @ Harshit 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

Raju Vs State of Haryana

Ravi @ Gorkha Vs State of Haryana

Sapna Bawa @ Sapna Vs State of Punjab and Another

Gurpreet Singh @ Kaka Vs State of Punjab

Vijay Kumar @ Daljit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sanjay Vs State of Haryana