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) 1148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.
Vicky @ Vikas Dahiya - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Cr M No. 17601 of 2021; Cr M M No. 41582 of 2020
Decided On : 12-07-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Amit Choudhary, Advocate, B.S. Virk, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail was justified based on the false implication of the petitioner and the expected duration of the trial.

Headnote:

Regular Bail - Section 439 Cr.P.C. - Grant of bail to husband accused under Sections 304-B, 498A, 34 IPC in case FIR No.433 - Court found that the husband is falsely implicated as crucial witness turned hostile - Bail granted based on the trial's expected duration and lack of purpose in keeping the petitioner in custody.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, husband of the deceased, sought regular bail in a case under Sections 304-B, 498A, 34 IPC, where he was implicated solely due to his relationship with the deceased. The father of the deceased, who lodged the FIR, did not support the case of prosecution and was declared hostile.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was falsely implicated as a crucial witness turned hostile. Considering the expected duration of the trial and the lack of purpose in keeping the petitioner in custody, the court granted bail to the petitioner.

Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's alleged involvement in the case solely based on his relationship with the deceased, the examination of prosecution witnesses, and the opposition to the grant of bail by the Deputy Advocate General.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the crucial witness turning hostile, indicating the petitioner's false implication, and the expected duration of the trial, leading to the conclusion that no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for a further period.

Final Decision: The application for regular bail was allowed, and bail was granted to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. - Matter has been taken up through video conferencing via Webex facility in the light of the Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per instructions.

CRM-17601-2021

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and CRM-M-41582-2020 is taken up on Board today itself.

CRM-M-41582-2020

3. Instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.433, dated 13.12.2019, under Sections 304-B,498A, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Old Faridabad, District Faridabad.

4. Petitioner before this Court is the husband of deceased-Mannu. It has been contended that the offence under which the petitioner has been implicated is only because he is husband of the deceased otherwise the allegations are false. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner is behind bars since 16.12.2019 and examination of the prosecution witnesses has already commenced. It is further contended that FIR in question was lodged by father of the deceased, namely, Netrapal, who has been examined by the trial Court and he did not support the case of prosecution and thus, was declared hostile. He further argues that this situation would in itself show that the petitioner is falsely implicated as crucial witness has already turned hostile. In the circumstances he prays that petitioner may be granted bail.

5. Mr.B.S.Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, submits that the fact regarding arrest of the petitioner is correct and complainant of the FIR, as contended by counsel for the petitioner, has already been examined and he did not support the case of prosecution. It is further submitted that there are in all 27 prosecution witnesses, out of which 4 have been examined. He opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

6. In totality of the facts and circumstances, I find that counsel for the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail to the petitioner. The trial would take some time for its conclusion and no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for further period.

7. Application is allowed.

8. Bail to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

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