Satish @ Shakti v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19527 of 2015.

Date of Decision: 16.06.2015 Satish @ Shakti ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ..... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raj Kumar Makkad, DAG Haryana.

*** Ramendra Jain, J.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.15 dated 13.01.2015 under Sections 307/34 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonepat.

Brief facts of the case are that on 13.01.2015, Balbir Singh-complainant moved a complaint before the police and around 11.15 pm on previous day i.e. 12.01.2015, he along with his family members had slept after eating food. However, on hearing a loud voice outside of their house, his son Krishan opened the door. He also woke up. The petitioner-accused Satish @ Shakti son of Jeet Ram along with co-accused Sandeep SHARMA YOGESH 2015.06.18 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRWP No.19527 of 2015 -2were found standing in front of the door of their house with an intention to kill them. The petitioner-accused fired shot upon them. One of the shot hit his son Krishan. However, he escaped narrowly. On his raising alarm, the assailants fled away from the spot along with their campaigning namely Kuldeep, Jony, Mahabir and Kala also resident of their village and one other person having 'dandas' in their hands ran away from the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that coaccused Sandeep has already been granted regular bail. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Krishan Chander has stated that the petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation. The accused is in custody since 20.01.2015.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail because he is in custody since 20.01.2015. The conclusion of trial shall take long time and no useful purpose would be served by detaining the accused in custody. Hence, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner shall be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Sonepat.

16.06.2015 ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) 'yogesh'

JUDGE SHARMA YOGESH 2015.06.18 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document