Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amandeep @ Monu vs State Of Hayrana on 28 September, 2020

Author: Anupinder Singh Grewal

Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal

      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

210                                    CRM-M-29079-2020 (O & M)
                                       Date of Decision: September 28, 2020

AMANDEEP @ MONU                                            .....PETITIONER


                                   VERSUS


STATE OF HAYRANA                                            ....RESPONDENT


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present:    Mr. Lekhraj Nandal, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Ashok Kumar Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.

            Mr. Dharambir Bhargav, Advocate for the complainant.

                       ****

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J (ORAL)

Heard through video conferencing.

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No.27 dated 25.01.2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 452, 325 506 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station IMT, Rohtak, District Rohtak.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not named in the FIR wherein 13 co-accused have been named and the nature of weapons carried by the 13 accused is also specified. The petitioner belongs to the same village as the complainant and in case he was present, he would also have been named in the FIR. He is in custody for about 08 months since 26.01.2020. He is not involved in any other case. He further contends that co- accused namely Pardeep @ Matla has been granted regular bail by this Court in CRM-M-21917-2020 on 14.08.2020.

Learned State counsel states that the petitioner was named in the supplementary statement recorded after 02 days of the occurrence. In 5 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 28-09-2020 23:27:01 ::: CRM-M-29079-2020 (O & M) -2- pursuance to the disclosure statement of the petitioner, the danda has been recovered. He upon instructions from ASI Rajeev states that the challan has been filed but charges are yet to be framed.

In view of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, especially when the petitioner is not named in the FIR, he is in custody for about 08 months, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.


                                        (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
                                                 JUDGE
September 28, 2020
A.Kaundal

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




                                                                               6



                                      2 of 2
                   ::: Downloaded on - 28-09-2020 23:27:02 :::