High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/16193/2016dismissed

Roshan Lal Arya v. State Of Haryana

2016-07-15Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-16193 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 15, 2016 Roshan Lal Arya

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Ravi Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Vikramjit Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.94 dated 26.04.2016 under Sections 124A, 153A and 153B IPC, registered at Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka, District Mewat (now Nuh).

Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. As per the allegations in the FIR, on receiving information, police party headed by SI Ram Chander reached on the spot, where Roshan Lal Arya, Ex.MLA and 6-7 leaders delivered there respective lectures with a VINEET GULATI 2016.07.19 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-16193 of 2016 -2view to hurt sentiments of religious, casteist feelings and gave slogan of 35 communities versus one community and one particular caste branded as luteras and stated that this case should be isolated from the society and stated that they should not be allowed to share the smoking of hubble-bubble and drinking water. Keeping in view the serious allegations against the petitioner, nature and gravity of the offence and without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and further in view of the fact that another FIR has already been registered against the present petitioner at other place regarding same type of activities, I do not find it a fit case where petitioner is entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

July 15, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE VINEET GULATI 2016.07.19 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh