Arun Kumar And ORS. v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH (i) CRM No.M-18439 of 2017 (O&M) Arun Kumar and others
...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(ii) CRM No.M-19187 of 2017 (O&M) Harsh Kumar and others
...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(iii) CRM No.M-21684 of 2017 (O&M) Prince
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana
...Respondent
Date of Decision: July 04, 2017
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present:
Mr.G.S.Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.B.S.Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.
Mr.Munish Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
****
CRM No.M-18439 of 2017 and connected petitions -2INDERJIT SINGH, J.
All the above-mentioned cases are taken up together as the same have arisen from same FIR.
Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.149 dated 13.08.2016 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 427, 447, 452, 307, 120-B, 506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.
Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant appeared and contested the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. As per prosecution version, when complainant Kiran Pal and Kulwinder were present on their land, at about 1.15 p.m., about 25-30 men armed with swords and dandas, and 8-10 ladies armed with dandas came there and inflicted injuries upon Kiran Pal and Kulwinder. No injury has been declared as dangerous to life. The injuries are stated to be simple in nature except injury on the hand, which is declared grievous caused with blunt weapon. There is also allegation that Gurvinder @ Lalli has also fired but the fire has not hit anybody.
The petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are not required for custodial interrogation. No useful purpose will be served by sending them to custody.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without
CRM No.M-18439 of 2017 and connected petitions -3expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case, where petitioners are entitled to benefit of grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, all the petitions are accepted and the order dated 22.05.2017 passed in CRM No.M-18439 of 2017, order dated 24.05.2017 passed in CRM No.M-19187 of 2017 and order dated 12.06.2017 passed in CRM No.M-21684 of 2017 granting interim bail to the petitioners, are made absolute. July 04, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No