← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/10249/2024dismissed

Vikas Singh Alias Sopu Alias Vikash Singh v. State Of Haryana

2024-02-27Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar2 pages

CRM-M No.10249 of 2024 -12024:PHHC:027407

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH 103.

CRM-M No.10249 of 2024 Date of Decision:27.02.2024 Vikas ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. Mohit, Advocate for the petitioner.

*** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.423 dated 12.12.2022 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 379-B, 427, 452, 506 IPC (Sections 324, 302, 307, 325, 120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act added later on) at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is not named in the FIR nor any over act is attributed to him. The injury caused to the deceased is specifically attributed to the co-accused and the petitioner has been nominated in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Ram Niwas while in police custody, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. It is further contended that similarly situated co-accused is granted concession of anticipatory bail vide order dated 17.05.2023 passed in CRM-M No.22135 of 2023 titled as Suresh vs. State of Haryana.

3.

Per contra, Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana, who appears on advance notice, submits that the petitioner has actively participated in the alleged PANKAJ KUMAR 2024.02.27 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M No.10249 of 2024 -22024:PHHC:027407 incident and his role has been duly established during investigation. There is sufficient material available on record to prove the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged incident. As such, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.

4.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, this Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The allegations levelled in the FIR are serious in nature and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Consequently, the instant petition stands dismissed.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE February 27, 2024 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2024.02.27 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document