Sonu v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-368-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:-14.1.2020 Sonu ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. S.K. Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Singh Choudhary, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, assisted by ASI A. Mohammad.

***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) 1.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.169 dated 28.8.2015 at Police Station Hassanpur, District Palwal, Haryana under Sections 307, 216, 120-B, 201 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act. 2.

The FIR was lodged at the intance of Paras Ram, wherein it has been alleged that on 28.8.2015, when he alongwith his brothers Nanak and Jai Parkash alongwith father Nawal Kishore were going to fields, then Sonu and Ashok Lohbal came on a motorcycle, which was being driven by Ashok Lohbal while Sonu was sitting on the pillion seat. It is alleged that Sonu fired gunshots hitting the complainant and his brother Nanak in their abdomen. PANKAJ KAKKAR 2020.01.14 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-368-2020 (O&M) 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and that, in any case, since the petitioner has been behind bars since the last 2 years and 11 months, he deserves the concession of bail.

4.

Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner is specifically alleged to have caused fire arm injuries, no case for grant of bail is made out. It has, however, been informed that till date, 12 out of 36 cited PWs have been examined and that eye witnesses already stand examined.

5.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 6.

Keeping in view the custody period of the petitioner, which is 2 years and 11 months and the fact that conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The petition, as such, is accepted and it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 14.1.2020 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No PANKAJ KAKKAR 2020.01.14 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document