Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.
Bharat Shiv Rattan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M-29917-2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 01-02-2022
Bail - Criminal Law - The court granted the petitioner regular bail in a case involving multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, considering the petitioner's custody period, delay in trial, and the fact that co-accused were already on bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, citing false implication, lack of specific injury attributed to the petitioner, no recovery, and delay in lodging the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the petitioner's custody period, delay in trial, and the fact that four co-accused were already on bail. It concluded that keeping the petitioner behind bars would serve no useful purpose, and hence granted the petition for regular bail.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's custody, delay in trial, and the bail status of co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the prolonged custody period, delay in trial, and the bail status of co-accused as grounds for granting regular bail to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The petition for regular bail was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
JUDGMENT
Harnaresh Singh Gill , J. (Oral) - Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.
2. Through this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case bearing FIR No.88 dated 02.02.2019, registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 365, 379-B and 506 IPC (Section 201 IPC added later on) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station City Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, Haryana.
3. The status report by way of affidavit dated 22.01.2022 of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, already filed in the Registry, is taken on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case by the police with ulterior motive; that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner; that no recovery was effected from the petitioner; that there is a delay of three days in lodging the FIR; that four other co-accused are on bail and that the petitioner has been in custody since 13.04.2021.
5. He further submits that there are two MLRs in the present case; that as per the first MLR, which was of a Government Hospital, there was only one injury on the person of the victim, but as per the second MLR, which was of a private hospital, there were 16 injuries on the person of the victim; that all the injuries were simple in nature and that similarly placed co-accused Anish @ Kobra, has already been granted regular bail vide order dated 14.12.2021 passed by this Court.
6. Learned State counsel, while vehemently opposing the prayer for bail submits that the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender on 07.12.2020 and was arrested on 13.04.2021. However, he does not dispute the custody period of the petitioner and the fact that four co-accused are on bail. He submits that the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The petitioner has been in custody since 13.04.2021. The prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. Four co-accused are on bail.
8. The conclusion of the trial would taken a long time. Hence, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.
9. In view of the above, without commenting anything on the merits, lest it should prejudice the case of either side, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
The court considered the prolonged custody period, delay in trial, and the bail status of co-accused as grounds for granting regular bail to the petitioner.
The decision to grant bail was based on the nature of injuries, the status of the co-accused, and the prolonged trial process.
The decision to grant regular bail was based on the prolonged custody period, lack of other pending cases, and the commencement of prosecution evidence.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of regular bail should be considered in light of the time it would take for the trial to conclude and the circumstances of the co....
The court considered the prolonged custody, lack of specific allegations, and delay in trial due to the Covid-19 pandemic as grounds for granting bail.
The court considered the lack of serious injury to the complainant, the petitioner not being named in the FIR, and the petitioner's prolonged detention without serving any useful purpose as grounds f....
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
