High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/8211/2020allowed

Anil v. State Of Haryana

2020-07-01Mr. Justice Suvir Sehgal2 pages

CRM-M-8211 of 2020 {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-8211 of 2020 Date of decision:01.07.2020 Anil ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. Rakesh Kumar Lathwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral) The Court has been convened through video conferencing due to Covid-19 pandemic.

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No.100 dated 05.08.2018 under Sections 307 and 454 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 302, 450 and 120-B IPC were added later on and Section 454 IPC was deleted) and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Mohana, District Sonipat.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 28.12.2018. FIR was lodged on 05.08.2018. In the FIR, the complainant did not name the petitioner but subsequently, on 11.08.2018, the mother of the deceased submitted an application to the police wherein the petitioner and other co-accused were named. Counsel has SAVITA KADIAN 2020.07.01 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

CRM-M-8211 of 2020 {2} referred to the status report filed by the State from where it is clear that no recovery was effected from the petitioner. He submits that petitioner has been named subsequently and has been framed as an after thought. Prayer for bail has been opposed by Mr.Amit Aggarwal, counsel for the State. Upon instructions from ASI Jeet Singh, he submits that the petitioner had entered into a conspiracy with two other co-accused to kill both the deceased. He further submits that the trial is pending and out of 30 prosecution witnesses, 14 witnesses including the complainant and mother of the deceased, have already been examined. Heard.

Considering the fact that since the petitioner is in custody for more than 11⁄2 year, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars any further.

Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

(SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE July 01, 2020 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No SAVITA KADIAN 2020.07.01 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh