Ravinder @ Gholu v. State Of Haryana

-1CRM-M-6545 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-6545 of 2019 Date of Decision: 20.02.2019 Ravinder @ Golu

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present:- Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raj Kumar Makkar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) Through this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case arising from FIR No.186 dated 06.10.2018 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 341, 307 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Behal, District Bhiwani. According to the prosecution, on 05.10.2018, petitioner and his accomplice, namely, Darshan, Mukesh, Samarjit @ Shera, Parveen Kumar, Virender, Anil @ Toni, Vikash and Parveen @ Mandia attacked Vikram cousin of complainant Tajinder with iron rods and sticks. Assailants also ran over Vikram under their vehicle. As a result thereof, Vikram sustained six fractures.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that out of 11 accused, three namely, Darshan, Samarjit @ Shera and Parveen @ Mandia have been granted regular bail, whereas accused Parveen Kumar, Virender, Mukesh, Anil @ Toni and Vikash have been granted anticipatory RAVINDER SINGH 2019.02.25 09:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

-2CRM-M-6545 of 2019 bail by the trial Court. Petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2018. Conclusion of trial may take a sufficient long time. No useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in jail any more. Treating the case of the petitioner on the same parity as that of his co-accused, he may also be granted regular bail.

On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner submitting that petitioner is the main accused, who has run over Vikram while driving his jeep. As a result of which, Vikram suffered six fractures. Case of the petitioner cannot be treated on the same parity of his aforesaid co-accused as they were not attributed any serious injury.

Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail as he is the main accused and has been attributed six injuries. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be allowed to withdraw this petition.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

(RAMENDRA JAIN) February 20, 2019 JUDGE R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2019.02.25 09:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document