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 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sanjay Alias Sannu And Others vs State Of Haryana on 28 July, 2011

Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain

Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain

Crl.Misc. No.M-33744 of 2010 (O&M)                       1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                              Crl.Misc. No.M-33744 of 2010 (O&M)

                              Date of Decision 28.07.2011

Sanjay alias Sannu and others
                                           Petitioners
                        versus

State of Haryana                          Respondent


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


Present:     Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate, for
             the petitioners.

             Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG,Haryana.

                        ***

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL)

This is a petition for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C.") in case registered vide FIR No. 48 dated 10.2.2009 under Sections 395, 397 IPC at Police Station Kundli, District Sonepat.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further pointed out that the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC was converted into an offence under Sections 395 and 397 IPC. However, as per the prosecution, there are some more cases registered against the petitioner. The details of the cases are as under:-

(i) Case No. 70/09 under Sections 394, 302, 201 I.P.C.

Police Station Shimbhawali.

Crl.Misc. No.M-33744 of 2010 (O&M) 2

(ii)Case Crime No. 183 of 2009 under Sections 379, 328 IPC,Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahar.

(iii) Case Crime No. 25 of 2009, under Sections 395, 398, 412 IPC and 2/3 Gangsters Act, Police Station Khanpur, District Bulandshahar.

(iv) Case Crime No. 85/2009 under Section 25 of the Arms Act , Police Station Khanpur District Bullandshehar.

Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that out of 19 witnesses, 10 witnesses have already been examined.

In view of the above that the trial of the case is in progress, I do not find it to be a fit case for bail.

Dismissed.

(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 28.07.2011. JUDGE Anoop