Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.
Manjeet @ Gallo - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M-3195-2022
Decided On : 11-02-2022

Advocates:
Mr. Rajender Singh Malik, Advocate, ; for the Petitioner.; Mr. Surender Singh, Aag, Haryana.

The decision to grant bail was influenced by the absence of injuries, the petitioner's prolonged custody, and the unlikelihood of the trial concluding soon.

Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Law - The court granted bail to the petitioner charged under Sections 307 and 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, considering the absence of injuries, the petitioner's custody since 24.08.2021, and the unlikelihood of the trial concluding soon.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought regular bail in a case where he was charged under Sections 307 and 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 for firing gun-shots at the complainant party, resulting in no injuries.
Finding of the Court:

The court, without commenting on the merits of the case, granted bail to the petitioner due to the absence of injuries, the petitioner's prolonged custody, and the unlikelihood of the trial concluding soon.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail despite the serious charges against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the absence of injuries, the petitioner's custody since 24.08.2021, and the unlikelihood of the trial concluding soon as the basis for granting bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill , J. (Oral) - Through this second petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 484 dated 17.08.2021, registered at Police Station Rai Sonipat, District Sonipat, under Sections 307 and 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that allegations against the petitioner are that he fired gun-shots upon the complainant party which had hit the window glass(es) and other places of the car of the complainant; that it is a case of no injury; that the petitioner has been in custody since 24.08.2021, and that so far as other cases registered against the petitioner, are concerned, he stands released on bail therein.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel, while opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had fired at the complainant and his companions with an intention to kill them.

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

5. The challan stands presented. It is a case of no injury. Out of 16 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. The petitioner has been in custody since 24.08.2021. Trial is unlikely to conclude any time soon. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

6. In view of the above, without commenting anything on the merits, lest it should prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document