Rajesh Kumar v. State Of Haryana And ANR

CRM-A-400-2020
 CRM-A-400-2020 Rajesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another

Present:

Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Ashish Bishnoi, DAG, Haryana for respondent No.1.

Mr. Sandeep Singh Jattan, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

***** CRM-A-400-2020 Perusal of the file shows that State-respondent No.1 is not necessary party, as such name of the State be deleted from array of the parties. Registry to do necessary corrections.

Applicant's counsel submits that the present application was filed against acquittal in the year 2020 and he has a very good case on merit. Mr. Sandeep Singh Jattan, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on record. He further submits that the judgment of acquittal is well reasoned and leave to appeal should not be granted. He further submits that in case, this Court grants leave to appeal and admit the main appeal, its turn will not come for hearing for decades, as such pendency of the appeal may be treated inconsequential for the respondent.  Leave to appeal granted.

Counsel for the respondent submits that he be exempted from furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds before the concerned trial Court or Chief Judicial Magistate. He undertakes to surrender before the majesty of Court as and when this Court directed to do so or in case of reversal of the judgment.  Given such undertaking, there shall be no need to furnish bail bonds/surety bonds by the respondent.

Main appeal Admit.

List for final hearing on its own turn as per its queue following the roster. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 13.08.2024 anju rani ANJU RANI 2024.08.15 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh