SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(P&H) 1259

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.
Rajesh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Cr M M No. 21340 of 2021
Decided On : 26-07-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Manoj Tanwar, Advocate, Zorawar Singh Chauhan, Advocate

Headnote:

Bail - Criminal Law - The court granted bail to the petitioner based on the prolonged custody period, pending trial, and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on trial proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving charges under Sections 120-B, 302, 34 IPC and Sections 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner had been in custody for over a year, and charges had been framed but no prosecution witness had been examined due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Finding of the Court:

The court, without commenting on the merits of the case, granted bail to the petitioner, considering the prolonged custody period, pending trial, and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on trial proceedings.

Issues: Prolonged custody period, pending trial, impact of Covid-19 pandemic on trial proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the prolonged custody period, pending trial, and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on trial proceedings as grounds for granting bail to the petitioner.

Final Decision: The petition for bail was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. - Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 316 dated 18.5.2020 under Sections 120-B, 302, 34 IPC and Sections 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Sadar Karnal, District Karnal.

3. Reply by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnal dated 15.7.2021, filed in the Registry, is taken on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he along with one Bhim Singh, pulled down Paramjit, brother of the complainant, from the tractor; that Bhim Singh has been declared innocent; that it is a case of version and cross-version and the issue as to which party was the aggressor one, is debatable; that the petitioner and his brother also suffered injuries in the occurrence and the petitioner has been in custody since 25.5.2020.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and has not disputed the custody period of the petitioner i.e. one year and two months. He further submits that charges have been framed but no prosecution witness has been examined till date.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is a case of version and cross-version. The petitioner has been in custody since 25.5.2020. Charges have been framed but the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. The trial will take time to conclude because of Covid-19 pandemic. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

8. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top