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 7, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Poonam vs State Of Haryana on 30 May, 2017

Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa

Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                           CHANDIGARH

                                           CRM No. M-18177 of 2017 (O&M)
                                           Date of Decision: 30.05.2017

Poonam                                                         --Petitioner

                             Versus
State of Haryana                                               --Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

Present:-    Mr. B.S. Saroha, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. C.S. Bakshi, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

        ***

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J This order shall dispose of the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C seeking the benefit of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.59 dated 10.2.2017 under sections 147, 149, 341, 384, 386, 506 I.P.C, registered at Police Station, Urban Estate, Rohtak.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Petitioner, who is a lady has faced incarceration since 26.3.2017 on the allegations that she in connivance with other co-accused had demanded a sum of Rs.10 lacs from the complainant on the threat of being implicated in a false rape case. A sum of Rs.24,000/- and a gold chain weighing three tolas is also stated to have been snatched from the complainant.

Investigation in the case is complete and the challan has been presented. Charges are yet to be framed.

As per prosecution, a recovery of Rs.20,000/- has been effected from co-accused Rohit. Rs.500/- is stated to have been recovered from the present petitioner.

1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-06-2017 21:15:59 ::: CRM No. M-18177 of 2017 (O&M) -2- Trial is at the very initial stage and would take time to conclude.

It is not the case made on behalf of the State that if concession of regular bail were to be granted to the petitioner, she would be in a position to hamper the course of a free and fair trial.

Without making any observations on merits, present petition is allowed. Petitioner be enlarged on bail subject to satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, Rohtak.

Petition disposed of.


                                         (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)
                                                   JUDGE
30.05.2017
lucky

             Whether speaking/reasoned:        Yes
             Whether Reportable:               No




                                      2 of 2
                   ::: Downloaded on - 09-06-2017 21:16:00 :::