Allowed

Ram Chander v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Nov 2024CRM-M/9686/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court order grants regular bail to the petitioner accused of injuries causing death. The court accepted submission that the petitioner played an auxiliary 'lalkara' role, trial was delayed with few witnesses examined, and further detention was useless.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

Ram Chander Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRM-M-9686-2024 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRM-M-9686-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 05.11.2024

Ram Chander

… Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

¶11

Present:Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Vishal Kashyap, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

Mr. Abhinashi Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

¶14

¶15

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral)

¶16

��	��	��	��
��	��	�� ��	�� !�!��!� ��!�� "� ��#��$�� ��"$"�%�� ��

¶17

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of aforementioned FIR, wherein the allegations are to the effect that 7 accused including the petitioner had inflicted injuries to Lovely and Iqbal Singh and that Lovely had expired on account of said injuries.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case simply in order to exert pressure upon the entire family. It has been submitted that while no specific role is attributed to any of the accused in the FIR, but the prosecution claims to have recorded statements of

¶19

ARCHANA ARORA 2024.11.05 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M-9686-2024 (O&M)

¶21

¶22

some co-accused, who have categorically stated that the petitioner had only raised a lalkara exhorting his companions to cause injuries.

¶23

Learned State counsel has not disputed the aforesaid position as regards the facts that co-accused Balram, Gulshan and Gautam in their disclosure statements have attributed lalkara only to the petitioner. Learned State counsel has, however, informed that the petitioner as on date has been behind bars since the last about 2 years, 2 month & 09 days and that as on date only 5 PWs out of cited 20 PWs have been examined.

¶24

This Court has considered rival submissions.

¶25

Having regard to the aforestated position particularly the fact that the petitioner has been attributed lalkara only and while also noticing that the conclusion of trial will take time inasmuch as only 5 PWs out of cited 20 PWs have been examined till date, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶26

05.11.2024 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL) archana JUDGE

¶27

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

¶28

ARCHANA ARORA 2024.11.05 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ram Chander v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chander 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

Baljinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anotehr

Sanjeev Singh Vs State of Haryana

Muskan Vs State of Punjab

Balwinder Singh @ Bimal and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Chanpreet Singh @ Kalu Bhatra Vs State of Punjab

Gurpreet Singh Alias Guri and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others