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 12, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Arjun Singh vs State Of Haryana on 16 May, 2014

Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar

Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar

                 CRM-M No. 13993 of 2014                                                 -1-

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                                             CHANDIGARH


                                                     CRM No.M-13993 of 2014
                                                     Date of decision : 16.05.2014


                 Arjun Singh
                                                                                      ...Petitioner
                                                       Versus

                 State of Haryana
                                                                                     ..Respondent


                 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR


                 Present:        Mr. Surinder Dagar, Advocate
                                 for the petitioner.

                                 Mr. H.S. Deol, Addl. A.G., Haryana
                                 for the State.

                                              ****


                 Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)

Petitioner-Arjun Singh son of Khem Singh, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No.107 dated 24.02.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Sadar Palwal, District Palwal.

2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the Sumit Kumar 2014.05.16 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No. 13993 of 2014 -2- entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

4. During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on April 25, 2014:-

"Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant-Daya Chand in this case on account of previous enmity. In fact, it is a case of version and cross version, in which the petitioner and his wife received multiple injuries including grievous injuries. Consequently, a criminal case was registered against the complainant and his other co-accused vide FIR No.111 dated 25.02.2014 (Annexure P-2) for commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 506 and 326 IPC. The argument is that the complainant has fabricated the injury and the medical board of doctors opined vide opinion dated 14.03.2014 that the alleged injury on the person of complainant is not possible by fire arm as claimed by him and it was declared simple in nature. Therefore, no indicated offences are made out against the petitioner.
Heard.
Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 16.05.2014.
Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of his arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to his satisfaction."

5. At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Raj Pal, learned State counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of his Sumit Kumar 2014.05.16 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No. 13993 of 2014 -3- previous involvement in any other criminal case. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

6. In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner, by virtue of order dated April 25, 2014, by this Court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or joins the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this respect.




                 16.05.2014                                            (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
                 sumit.k                                                     Judge




Sumit Kumar
2014.05.16 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document