Manoj @ Pahari v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-17183 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 29, 2016 Manoj @ Pahari

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.J.S.Bedi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sunil Sihag, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Vikas Chopra, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.43 dated 11.02.2015 under Sections 302, 148, 149, 120-B, 216 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Narwana, District Jind.

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. From the record, I find that the FIR has been registered on the statement of Rajesh Kumar. As per the allegations of the prosecution, Vineet Gulati 2016.09.02 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Manoj @ Pahari present petitioner along with other co-accused came out of

CRM No.M-17183 of 2016 -2the car Hyundai I20. Satbir @ Jhabbal and Suryavir Pandit, non-applicants co-accused were holding weapons in their hands and fired upon Surender @ Tuti, who fell down on the ground and succumbed to the injuries. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no injury has been attributed to the present petitioner. Rahul eye witness, in the supplementary statement, has not named present petitioner. The other coaccused also not named the present petitioner in the disclosure statement. Learned State counsel submitted that accused-petitioner himself in his disclosure statement has shown his involvement. Furthermore, the complainant has also specifically named him that he also came with other co-accused in the car.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case where petitioner is entitled to benefit of regular bail. Otherwise also, there is every apprehension that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence.

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

August 29, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2016.09.02 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh