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 2, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Chanan Ram @ Chandan vs State Of Haryana And Another on 8 February, 2012

Criminal Misc. M-32912 of 2011             1


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                 Criminal Misc. M-32912 of 2011(O&M)
                                 Date of decision:8th February, 2012

Chanan Ram @ Chandan
                                                     .......Petitioner

                                 Versus

State of Haryana and another
                                                     ........Respondents

                    Criminal Misc.M-36120 of 2011
Suraj Mukhi @ Chander Mukhi @ Mukhri
                                         ........Petitioner

                                 Versus

State of Haryana and another
                                                     ........Respondents

BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

Present:         Mr. P.K.Ganga, Advocate
                 for the petitioner in
                 Criminal Misc.M-32912 of 2011.

                 Mr. P.S.Jammu, Advocate
                 for the petitioner in
                 Criminal Misc. M- 36120 of 2011.

                 Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana
                 for the respondent - State.

1.      Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
        the judgment? Yes/No
2.      To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No
3.      Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
        Yes/No

Vijender Singh Malik, J.(Oral)

Chanan Ram @ Chandan and Suraj Mukhi @ Chander Mukhi @ Mukhri have prayed for pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.10, dated 05.01.2006 at Police Station Sadar Sirsa for an Criminal Misc. M-32912 of 2011 2 offence punishable under sections 323, 324, 326, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in which they have been summoned by the court under the provisions of section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no injury has been attributed to the petitioners in the occurrence. According to him, during investigation, the petitioners were found innocent and their names were placed in column No. 2 of the challan.

Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant.

On the other hand, learned State counsel on instructions of ASI, Tota Ram submits that the petitioners were found innocent by the investigating agency and their names had been placed in column No. 2 of the challan.

Keeping in view the facts that the other co-accused of the petitioners in the case are on bail and that the petitioners were found innocent by the police and that they have been summoned under the provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C. they are entitled to the concession of bail. Hence the petition is allowed and the petitioners are directed to appear before the trial court on or before 16.02.2012 and on their appearance, they shall be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the trial court.

[VIJENDER SINGH MALIK] JUDGE 8th February, 2012 Shivani Kaushik