Ved Parkash vs State of Haryana - 2022 Supreme(P&H) 1994

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1994

ANOOP CHITKARA
Ved Parkash – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Dr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Manish Bansal, D.A.G, Haryana, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
272	29.08.2022	Salhawas, District Jhajjar	148, 149, 323, 342, 365, 379-B, 506 IPC

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2. In paragraph 18 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. Petitioner's counsel argued that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. State's counsel opposes the bail.

REASONING:

5. The allegations against the petitioner are that he armed with iron rod along with other co accused gave beatings to the complainant and forcibly took him in his car to the house of other co accused . On primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, injuries inflicted by the petitioner, and other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial or pre-trial incarceration at this stage. Furthermore, the petit