← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/11330/2017allowed

Manish v. State Of Haryana

2017-09-05Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (i) CRM No.M-11330 of 2017 (O&M) Manish

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

(ii) CRM No.M-11534 of 2017 (O&M) Madan

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

Date of Decision: September 05, 2017

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM No.M-11330 of 2017). Mr.Hamid Hussan, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM No.M-11534 of 2017). Mr.B.S.Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Both the above-mentioned cases are taken up together as the same have arisen from same FIR.

Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.70 dated 10.03.2017 under Sections 323, 34, 341, 506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered Vineet Gulati 2017.09.06 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula.

CRM No.M-11330 of 2017 and connected petition -2Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that the allegations under Arms Act are not against the present petitioners. The petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are not required for custodial interrogation. Nothing is to be recovered from them. The trial of the case will take long time. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners to custody. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case, where petitioners are entitled to benefit of grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, both the petitions are accepted. The order dated 03.04.2017 passed in CRM No.

M-11330 of 2017 and order dated 05.04.2017 passed in CRM No.M11534 of 2017 granting interim bail to the petitioners, are made absolute. September 05, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2017.09.