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 3, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Naval Kishore vs State Of Punjab on 28 May, 2012

Author: Paramjeet Singh

Bench: Paramjeet Singh

CRM M-10625 of 2012                                                            1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH


                                          CRM M-10625 of 2012 (O&M)
                                         Date of Decision: May 28, 2012


Naval Kishore                                              ... Petitioner

                                   Versus

State of Punjab                                            ... Respondent

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

Present:    Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Jaspreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab.


Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner (Naval Kishore son of Sat Pal Sharma) under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to him in a case arising out of F.I.R. No. 271, dated 28.12.2009, registered at Police Station Haibowal, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana, under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Notice of motion was issued on 19.04.2012.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, there is no direct evidence on record and the prosecution version only revolves around the circumstantial evidence. According to the prosecution, Darshan Singh has last seen the petitioner in the company of the CRM M-10625 of 2012 2 deceased and no other role or overt act is attributed to him. But Darshan Singh-PW4 did not support the prosecution version in this regard. There is no evidence, much less cogent, on record against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was arrested on 29.12.2009 (wrongly mentioned in the petition as 29.01.2009) and since then he is in custody. He is no longer required for any purpose in detention in jail. The conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that co- accused identically situated has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 27.01.2012 (Annexure P/1).

So taking into consideration the nature of accusation, the evidence, the fact that Darshan Singh-PW4 did not support the prosecution case and totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed herein-above, to me, the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the present case.

In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commending further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial, the application for regular bail is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

May 28, 2012                                        [Paramjeet Singh]
vkd                                                      Judge