Harjeet @ Banti vs State Of Haryana on 19 July, 2011

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Harjeet @ Banti vs State Of Haryana on 19 July, 2011

Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain

CRM-M-17388 of 2011                                                     -1-




IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
                          *****
                                       CRM-M-17388 of 2011
                                   Date of Decision:19.07.2011

Harjeet @ Banti
(Now confined in Distt. Jail Sonepat)
                                                                        . . .Petitioner

                                        Versus
State of Haryana
                                                                     . . . Respondent

                         *****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
                         *****

Present:     Mr.Surender Deswal, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr.Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana.

             Mr.Ashit Malik, Advocate,
             for the respondent.
                                    *****

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL)

This is an application for bail in pending trial case registered vide FIR No.115 dated 11.4.2010 under sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 302, 395 , 447 of the Indian Penal Code and 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Ganaur, District Sonepat.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. He has been arrested on the basis of suspicion and allegedly one ballam has been recovered from him which is not allegedly used for committing murder or causing injury. He further submits that he is in custody since 15.4.2010 and the challan has already been presented. He has also referred to an order of the learned trial Court dated 23.2.2011 pertaining to the bail of Amit son of Suresh against whom supplementary challan was presented by the prosecution that he has armed with Dhanda and was in company of other co- accused who were armed with swords, ballam, jelli etc. and attacked deceased Uday son of Satbir besides injuring Mauji Ram, Rohtash, Jagmender and Ajit Singh.

CRM-M-17388 of 2011 -2-

Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the evidence in this case has started. It is stated that out of 35 witnesses only one witness has been examined so far but at the same time they have admitted that there is no injury with ballam either to the deceased or to the injured.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case but without making any observations on the merit, I find it a fit case for bail. Hence, the petition is hereby allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

                                                     (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
JULY 19, 2011                                              JUDGE
Vivek

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court