Neeral v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (i) CRM No.M-22606 of 2018 (O&M) Neeraj

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

(ii) CRM No.M-22905 of 2018 (O&M) Vijay

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

Date of Decision: July 4, 2018

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Aman Pal, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM No.M-22606 of 2018). Mr.Vishal Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM No.M-22905 of 2018). Mr.Surender Singh, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Both the above-mentioned cases are taken up together as the same have arisen from same FIR.

Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.111 dated 25.03.2018 under Section Vineet Gulati 2018.07.05 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-22606 of 2018 and connected petition -2115 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station City Dadri, District Charkhi Dadri.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that as per the FIR, during investigation of some murder case, the mobile phone of petitioner Vijay was put on surveillance, upon which, he was found to be talking to some other person to eliminate one Pardhan. Later on, during investigation, it was found that petitioner Vijay was talking with petitioner Neeraj. Petitioner Vijay has been in custody since 25.03.2018 and petitioner Neeraj has been in custody since 26.03.2018. The trial of the case will take long time. The petitioners are not required for any investigation or interrogation purposes as they are in judicial custody. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners in custody till disposal of the case.

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, both the petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail subject to their furnishing personal/surety bonds in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. July 04, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2018.07.