High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/19137/2017dismissed

Inderpal @ Sonu v. State Of Haryana

2017-07-07Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj2 pages

CRM-M-19137 of 2017 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19137 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision : 07.07.2016 Inderpal @ Sonu ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Nipul Vashist, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG, Haryana.

Surinder Gupta, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 115 dated 22.03.2015 registered for offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201, 392 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Tauru, District Mewat. As per allegations in the FIR, petitioner and his co-accused Rahul Puri and Vijay @ Neeraj booked a car on 19.03.2015, which was owned by Ashok Kumar and deceased-Imran was driver on this car. They later kidnapped and murdered Imran in a criminal conspiracy with each other. They also caused disappearance of evidence of commission of offence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and it is a case of no eye-witness account. The petitioner was arrested on 26.03.2015 and despite expiry of more than two years, trial has not concluded. Learned State counsel has argued that it is a case of blind Jitender Kumar 2017.07.10 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-19137 of 2017 -2murder based on circumstantial evidence. Besides disclosure statement of petitioner, prosecution is relying on call details of petitioner, his co-accused and the deceased, which clearly show that they were in contact with each other immediately before the incident. Release of petitioner at this stage will not be in the interest of justice. However, direction may be issued to prosecution to conclude the evidence at the earliest. Keeping in view gravity of offence, I find no reason to extend the benefit of bail to petitioner at this stage. The instant petition is dismissed.

However, trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of case and dispose of the same at the earliest, preferably within a period of six months. July 07, 2017 ( SURINDER GUPTA) jk JUDGE Whether speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Jitender Kumar 2017.07.10 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH