High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/22204/2016allowed

Shokin v. State Of Haryana

2017-02-02Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan2 pages

Crl. Misc. No. M-22204 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No. 204 Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-22204 of 2016 Date of Decision : February 02, 2017 Shokin ....

Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana ....

Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL.

* * * Present :

Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana.

* * * DEEPAK SIBAL , J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr. P. C. seeking grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 85 dated 16.03.2016, registered under Section 13 (2) of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Sections 307, 332, 353, 186, 120-B IPC, at Police Station Dharuhera, District Rewari. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 02.05.2016; challan has been filed and therefore, the petitioner is not needed for further investigation purposes; no prosecution witness has been examined and therefore, it is expected that the trial would take a long time to conclude and that there is no other criminal Monika 2017.02.02 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Crl. Misc. No. M-22204 of 2016 case pending against the petitioner.

Learned State counsel opposes the petition for bail on the ground that the petitioner not stopped the vehicle at the barricades put by the police and rather ran through them, as a result of which, two police personnel received simple injuries.

After considering the above submissions, I am of the opinion that the exact role of the petitioner is yet to be deciphered through the trial, which is likely to take a long time to conclude as in the same, till date, no prosecution witness has been examined. Undisputedly, there is no other criminal case pending against the petitioner, who is a young man of 22 years of age.

Resultantly, the present bail petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Rewari.

Nothing observed herein above shall be considered as an expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the case. ( DEEPAK SIBAL ) JUDGE February 02, 2017 monika Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No.

Monika 2017.02.02 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document