Allowed

Sonu @ Manda v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jan 2023CRM-M/1904/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner applied for regular bail in a criminal trial where he was accused of grievous hurt and attempt to murder. The court observed that the specific injuries were not attributed to him and a co-accused had already been granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner Sonu @ Manda ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Sonu @ Manda Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

CRM-M-1904-2023

¶2

--1--

¶3

210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-1904-2023 Decided on:-18.01.2023

Sonu @ Manda

....Petitioner..

vs.

State of Haryana

....Respondent.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶11

Present: Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Sumit Jain, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State.

¶13

¶14

HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)

¶15

By way of present petition, the petitioner prays for grant of regular bail during pendency of trial in case FIR No.165 dated 09.08.2022 under Sections 323, 506 and 34 of IPC (Sections 307 and 325 IPC were added later on), registered at Police Station Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad.

¶16

Referring to the FIR, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the injury under Sections 325 and 307 IPC, has not been attributed to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is already behind the bars since 31.08.2022 and challan already stands filed. Moreover, the coaccused, namely, Vikas @ Kalu has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 04.01.2023 passed in CRM-M59774-2022. He also submits that the trial is likely to take long time and as such, petitioner may be released on bail during its pendency.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State does not

¶18

SONIKA 2023.01.18 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-1904-2023

¶20

--2--

¶21

dispute the aforesaid facts, however, opposes the grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book.

¶23

Considering the facts that the injury under Sections 325 and 307 IPC, has not been attributed to the petitioner; that the co-accused, namely, Vikas @ Kalu has already been granted the concession of bail, vide abovementioned order; challan already stands filed and trial is likely to take long time, no useful purpose is going to be served by extending the incarceration of the petitioner any further, who is in custody since 31.08.2022.

¶24

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the mertis of the case, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner, namely, Sonu @ Manda is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

¶25

18.01.2023 (HARKESH MANUJA) sonika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/ No

¶26

SONIKA 2023.01.18 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Sonu @ Manda v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu @ Manda 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldeep Singh Vs N/S Gauav Electronics and Anr.

Ballar @ Navi Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Gurmeet Singh @ Meeta Vs State of Punjab

Balbir Singh Alias Pammu Alias Balvir Vs State of Punjab

Pradeep Kumar Verma and Another Vs State of U.T. Chandigarh and Another

Rajiv @ Raju Vs State of Haryana