Petitioner in custody over six years in a murder FIR sought regular bail. Counsel instead sought expedition of trial, 18 of 24 witnesses examined. Court declined to grant bail but directed the trial Court to take up the matter on priority and decide expeditiously.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
���������������� �
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
236 CRM-M-29818-2024 Date of Decision: 02.08.2024
Naresh Kumar ......... Pe��oner
Versus State of Haryana ......... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present Mr. Suneet Kumar, Advocate for the pe��oner.
Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, D.A.G., Haryana.
ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL)
| FIR No. | Dated | Police Sta1on | Sec1ons |
|---|---|---|---|
| 385 | 06.11.2017 | Pundri, District Karnal |
302, 120-B IPC and 25 of the Arms Act (earlier FIR was registered under Sec�ons 148, 149, 302 IPC but charges were framed 302, 120-B IPC read with Sec�on 25 of Arms Act) |
The pe��oner incarcerated in the FIR cap�oned above, has come up before this Court
under Sec�on 439 CrPC seeking bail.
JYOTI 2024.08.09 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
����������������
�
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE
02.08.2024 Jyo�-II
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
JYOTI 2024.08.09 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial should be expedited given the petitioner's prolonged pre-trial custody of over six years in a murder case.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Naresh Kumar
State of Haryana
Anoop Chitkara
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
