Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
Raghbir - Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Cr. Misc. No. 13736-M of 2003.
Decided On : 3 September, 2004
Bail - Criminal Procedure Code - Regular bail granted to petitioner charged under Section 307 IPC and Arms Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition for regular bail in a case involving charges under Section 307 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. The petitioner had been in jail since November 2003, and the trial was expected to take a long time. The police had filed the challan in court without seeking the doctor's opinion on the nature of the injuries suffered by the injured.
Finding of the Court:
The court, without commenting on the merits of the case, granted the concession of regular bail to the petitioner, considering the delay in the trial and the lack of clarity regarding the doctor's opinion on the injuries caused by the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's prolonged detention without trial and the lack of clarity regarding the doctor's opinion on the injuries suffered by the injured.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the delay in the trial, the lack of clarity regarding the doctor's opinion, and the petitioner's prolonged detention.
Final Decision: The petition for regular bail was allowed, and the petitioner was granted bail to the satisfaction of CJM, Panipat.
Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code for grant of regular bail in case F.I.R. No. 205 dated 4.11.2003, registered at Police Station Sadar, Panipat, under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is inside the jail since November, 2003 and the trial will take a long time. He further contends that the injured was discharged from the hospital soon after the incident and the police has filed the challan in the Court without seeking any opinion of the doctor about the nature of the injuries suffered by the injured.
4. Counsel for the respondent has stated that now on 23.8.2004, opinion of the doctor has been obtained in which injuries caused by the petitioner are stated to be dangerous to life. It is not clear from the police file as to who had given the said opinion. He also admitted that the said opinion was not submitted by the police before the trial Court.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts, without commenting on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.
Bail to the satisfaction of CJM, Panipat.
Petition allowed.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
