Allowed

Ravi @ Gorkha v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Aug 2020CRM-M/7834/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, treating the case on parity with his co-accused who had already been granted bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail during pendency of trial, furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

Ravi @ Gorkha Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2020)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRM-M-7834 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-7834 of 2020

¶5

Date of Decision: 06.08.2020

Ravi @ Gorkha

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

¶12

Present:Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

¶13

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶14

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

¶15

Through instant petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made for grant of regular bail to petitioner – Ravi @ Gorkha – in case FIR No.485 dated 25.11.2018 registered under Section 148, 149, 307, 323, 427, 452, 506 IPC (Sections 302 IPC added lateron) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station KUK, District Kurukshetra.

¶16

Learned counsel inter alia contends that petitioner was not named in the FIR. Complainant, his wife and son, who appeared as PW2 to PW4, respectively, did not support the prosecution case. Conclusion of trial may take a sufficient long time. No useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in jail any more. Co-accused of the petitioner namely, Rahul Malik and another have been granted regular bail by this

¶17

RAVINDER SINGH 2020.08.06 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

-2-

¶19

CRM-M-7834 of 2020

¶20

Court vide order dated 12.02.2020 passed in CRM-M-5209 of 2020. Therefore, treating the case of the petitioner on the same parity as that of his co-accused, he may also be granted regular bail.

¶21

On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

¶22

Considering overall facts and circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed. Petitioner – Ravi @ Gorkha – is ordered to be released on bail during pendency of trial, if not required in any other case, on the same parity as that of his aforesaid co-accused, on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶23

(RAMENDRA JAIN) August 06, 2020 JUDGE R.S.

¶24

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

¶25

RAVINDER SINGH 2020.08.06 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ravi @ Gorkha v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi @ Gorkha 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

Ravinder Vs State of Haryana

Sonu Vs State of Haryana

Raghu Singh Vs State of Punjab

Raju Vs State of Haryana

Sapna Bawa @ Sapna Vs State of Punjab and Another

Banti@ Gagan @Golu Vs State of Haryana