← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/3356/2023allowed

Ballu And ANR v. State Of Haryana

2023-05-29Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill3 pages

2023:PHHC:078103

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.05.2023 BALLU AND ANR ... Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG Haryana.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) CRM-24362-2023 This is an application for placing on record Annexure A-2. With no objection from the learned State counsel, the present application is allowed.

Annexure A-2 is taken on record.

Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place. CRM-22951-2023 This is an application for placing on record Annexure A-1. With no objection from the learned State counsel, the present application is allowed.

Annexure A-1 is taken on record.

Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.

-2CRM-M-3356-2023 Through this second petition, the petitioners seek regular bail in case bearing FIR No.107 dated 09.04.2022, registered under Section 5/13(2) and 17 of HGS and GS Act, 2015; Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Bhondsi, District Gurugram, the first one having been dismissed as withdrawn on 29.10.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been involved in the present case; that the petitioners have been custody since 09.04.2022; that it is a case of no injury and that as far as other two cases are concerned, the petitioners were involved in the said cases on the basis of the disclosure statement and is on bail and that too after their arrest in the present case.

Per contra, while opposing the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioners, learned State counsel does not dispute the custody period of the petitioners. She, however, submits that the petitioners are involved in cow slaughtering and that the petitioners throw one cow from the moving vehicle, which died and five cows got injured. She further submits that one of the petitioners fired towards the complainant and that some of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined and thus, they do not deserve the concession of regular bail. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is a case of no injury. The petitioners have been in custody since 09.04.2022.

-3arrest in the present case and are on bail. Most of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. In such circumstances, the trial of the case would take a long time to conclude. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars. In view of the above and without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it should prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 29.05.2023 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No