← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/1002/2020allowed

Mintu v. State Of Haryana

2020-01-16Ms. Justice Jaishree Thakur2 pages

CRM-M No.1002 of 2020 -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.1002 of 2020 Date of Decision.16.01.2020 Mintu

...Petitioner

Vs State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:

Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal, AAG, Haryana.

-.- JAISHREE THAKUR J. (ORAL) 1.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a criminal appeal arising out of FIR No.172 dated 11.10.2013 under Sections 323, 354-B, 452, 506, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Satnali, District Mehendergarh, Haryana. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence before the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, sentence of the petitioner had been suspended vide order dated 05.12.2016. However, due to miscommunication and misunderstanding of the date fixed in the matter, petitioner could not appear before the Court below and by an order dated 30.08.2018, his bail has been cancelled.

3.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State opposes the bail application by arguing that the petitioner jumped the bail and therefore, the Court below has rightly cancelled the same.

PANKAJ KUMAR 2020.01.20 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.1002 of 2020 -24.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.

Without entering into the controversy with regard to the reasons for failure of the petitioner to appear before the Court, in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to grant petitioner concession of regular bail as he is stated to be in custody since 18.11.2018 after his arrest. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on execution of personal bond in the sum of `60,000/- and two surety bonds of the like amount to the satisfaction of Appellate Court where his appeal is pending.

(JAISHREE THAKUR) JUDGE January 16, 2020 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2020.01.20 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document