High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/16784/2017allowed

Pardeep v. State Of Haryana

2017-05-22Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.05.2017

1. CRM-M No.16784 of 2017 Pardeep ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ....Respondent

2. CRM-M No.17280 of 2017 Ram Mehar ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

Present:

Mr. Balraj Singh Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner (in both the petitions) Ms. Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana.

(in both the petitions) REKHA MITTAL J. (Oral) This order will dispose of CRM-M Nos.16784 and 17280 of 2017 as these have emerged out of FIR No.238 dated 23.12.2016 under Sections 363, 366-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Lakhan Majra, District Rohtak. Counsel for the petitioners (in both the petitions) has submitted that the petitioners have been sought to be indicted in the crime with the aid of Section 120-B IPC. It is further submitted that the alleged kidnapped girl and accused - Amit have not been recovered till

date and they might have performed marriage. Challan has been presented in the Court and conclusion of trial is likely to take its own time. One of the co-accused namely Jitender was released on bail vide order dated 03.05.2017 passed in CRM-M No.14605 of 2017. The petitioners are ready to face the proceedings, in accordance with law. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail with the submission that both the petitioners played an overt role in the crime committed by Amit by taking away a girl aged 16 years and 04 months old.

I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the paperbook and the police records.

Concededly, challan has been presented in the Court and presence of the petitioners is required for the purpose of attending to the proceedings. The alleged kidnapped girl and the boy have not been recovered in order to know something from the alleged victim. Conclusion of the trial is likely to take its own time. There is no allegation against the petitioners that they would abscond, in case enlarged on bail.

Without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the controversy, the petitioners shall be released on bail subject to satisfaction of the trial Court. However, they shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) They shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade his/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

(ii) They shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE 22.05.2017 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No