Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manmeet vs State Of Haryana on 17 October, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-31393 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-31393 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-17.10.2012
Manmeet
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Balraj Singh Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Gaurav Verma, AAG Haryana for the respondent.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
Petitioner Manmeet son of Inderjit has preferred the instant petition for the grant of regular bail, in a case registered against him alongwith his other 22 co-accused, by way of FIR No.99 dated 20.9.2011 (Annexure P2), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 307, 452, 216, 506 & 120-B read with Section 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act by the police of Police Station Chhachhrauli, Distt.Yamuna Nagar, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.PC.
2. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this respect.
4. The prosecution claimed that petitioner was also present CRM No. M-31393 of 2012 (O&M) 2 along with his other co-accused at the time of incident. No other role, overt-act or injury is attributed to him. It is not a matter of dispute that 13 persons, co-accused of the petitioner, were found innocent by the police during the course of investigation. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 12.3.2012 (after about six months of the occurrence), since then, he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served in further detaining him in jail. Even, since the charges have not yet been framed against the accused, so, the conclusion of trial would naturally take a long time. There is no history of previous involvement of petitioner in any other criminal case.
5. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of all facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as described here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the main case, the instant petition for regular bail is accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
6. Needless to state that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits during the trial of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition in this relevant connection.
17.10.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge