Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Avneesh Jhingan., J.
Ankit @ Godu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M-2754 of 2021
Decided On : 25-01-2021
Bail - Arms Act - Strained relationship leading to firing incident - Regular bail granted based on lack of specific injury attributed to the petitioner and likelihood of trial taking time
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving charges under the Arms Act and IPC sections for an incident where the complainant was fired upon with an intention to kill him.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted bail to the petitioner considering the absence of specific allegations or injuries attributed to the petitioner, the inter-se rivalry, and the likelihood of trial taking time.
Issues: Regular bail application in a case involving charges under the Arms Act and IPC sections, petitioner's involvement in multiple cases, and inter-se rivalry between parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the absence of specific allegations or injuries attributed to the petitioner, the inter-se rivalry, and the likelihood of trial taking time.
Final Decision: The petitioner was granted bail subject to furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.
JUDGMENT
Avneesh Jhingan, J. (Oral) - The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.
2. The petitioner is before this Court for regular bail in case FIR No. 55 dated 14.2.2020 under Section 25 of Arms Act and Sections 148, 149, 307 IPC, registered at Police Station Meham District Rohtak.
3. The facts in narrow compass are that the FIR was at the instance of Ashok @ Shoki. It was stated that he was having strained relationship with some of co-villagers. On 14.2.2020 when he was coming back from his fields, five person including Ankit @ Godu were chasing the complainant on two motor cycles. One Sahil fired upon the chest of complainant with an intention to kill him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no role has been attributed to the petitioner; there is no allegation that the petitioner was armed or had inflicted injury. It is contended that the petitioner is in custody since April 2020; investigation is complete.
5. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer. On instructions from SI Joginder Singh submits that the petitioner was involved in 13 other cases out of which two are pending. He further submits that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in two pending FIRs he is on bail and it is further submitted that the parents of the petitioner had lodged three FIRs against the complainant.
7. Considering that there is an inter-se rivalry; there is no specific injury attributed to the petitioner and the conclusion of trial is likely to take time, the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.
8. The petition is allowed.
9. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
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
