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

Som Dutt And Anr vs State Of Haryana on 1 August, 2018

Author: Jaishree Thakur

Bench: Jaishree Thakur

Crl. Misc. M-41330-2017                                                     -1-



    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                          Crl. Misc. M-41330 of 2017 (O&M)
                                          Date of Decision: August 01, 2018

Som Dutt and another
                                                                 ...Petitioners

                                        Versus

State of Haryana

                                                                ...Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:-    Ms. Deepshikha Chauhan, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

             Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, AAG Haryana.

             Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate
             for the complainant.

                                    ********

JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.269 dated 24.08.2017, under Sections 306, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Nissing, Karnal.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners herein were taken into custody in the aforesaid FIR on 26.08.2017 and 02.09.2017 respectively. It is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that examination-in-chief of the complainant has been recorded and now the matter is pending for consideration on the application moved by the prosecution under Section 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2018 14:28:58 ::: Crl. Misc. M-41330-2017 -2- 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the other persons as accused to face the trial. It is also contended that conclusion of trial will take sufficient time, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent- State, on instructions from the Investigating Officer and counsel for the complainant oppose the grant of regular bail to the petitioners, however, do not dispute the fact that examination-in-chief of the complainant has been recorded and now the matter is pending for consideration on the application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Since, the trial is likely to take some time and in view of the facts that the petitioners herein have been in custody since 26.08.2017 and 02.09.2017 respectively, that the examination-in-chief of the complainant has been recorded and that the matter is now pending for consideration on the application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. , no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioners behind bar. At this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on regular bail on execution of adequate personal bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.


                                                (JAISHREE THAKUR)
August 01, 2018                                       JUDGE
vijay saini




Whether speaking/reasoned                              Yes/No
Whether reportable                                     Yes/No




                                 2 of 2
              ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2018 14:28:58 :::