High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/16021/2016allowed

Anil v. State Of Haryana

2016-08-16Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg2 pages

CRM-M-16021-2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16021-2016 Date of Decision:- 16.08.2016 Anil ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. Balraj Gujjar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Present petition for release of petitioner on regular bail in FIR No.303 dated 21.08.2015, under Sections 376, 511 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Kanina, District Mahendergarh. As per the allegations set up in the FIR that on 19.08.2012 complainant Durga daughter of Ram Kishan along with her mother Santra Devi were going to field for bringing fodder then in the way Anil son of Leela Ram came on tractor and tried to commit wrong act with the complainant by forcible pulling her down and by putting her leg on abdomen. With these allegations, the FIR was registered against the accused.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a calendra was registered on 20.07.2015 as there was a dispute going on between the Naresh Kumar 2016.08.17 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-16021-2016 -2family members of petitioner and complainant. The present FIR has been registered on 19.08.2015 and a criminal complaint bearing CRL.C.139 dated 05.08.2015 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 427, 221 and 506 IPC filed by father of petitioner, namely, Leela Ram against brother and other relatives of complainant is pending before the JMIC, Mahendergarh. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that out of 13 witnesses, only 03 witnesses have been examined.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record. Keeping in view the fact that the litigation is pending between the families of the parties and the fact that the petitioner was arrested on 29.12.2015, no useful purpose would be served to further detain the petitioner in jail. The final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. In view of above facts, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge/Duty Magistrate, Mahendergarh.

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, on merits in the trial of the main case, in any manner. August 16, 2016 ( RITU BAHRI ) naresh.k JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Naresh Kumar 2016.08.17 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh