High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/21138/2015allowed

Nitin Bhadana v. State Of Haryana

2016-07-26Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM No.M-21138 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 26, 2016 Nitin Bhadana

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Deepender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Vikramjit Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Ms.Loveleen Dhaliwal, Advocate for the complainant.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.476 dated 25.11.2014 under Sections 307, 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act (Section 120-B IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Saran, District Faridabad. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of Des Raj. As per the allegations, on 24.11.2014 at about 9.00 P.M., the complainant and his brother Pankaj were present at their shop. The complainant went away from the spot for taking VINEET GULATI 2016.07.27 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-21138 of 2016 -2some items. Then he heard a noise and when he turned around, he saw two young man running from his shop. When complainant went back to his shop, both the boys ran away riding their bike. When the complainant went inside the shop, he saw his brother injured having fire shot injuries. It is argued that two of the co-accused of the petitioners are already on bail. The present petitioner is in custody since 30.11.2014. He is not required for investigation or interrogation purposes. The trial of the case will take long time. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody till the final disposal of the case, especially when the co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted benefit of bail.

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, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. July 26, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VINEET GULATI 2016.07.