Murslin v. State Of Haryana




    
      Date of decision: 17th July, 2015  Murslin  Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana  Respondent         
  
 1.

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:

Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Munish Sharma, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana with ASI Ramesh Chander.

 
!"

# Allegations against the petitioner Murslin in this regular bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.494 dated 13.12.2014 registered at Police Station Sadar Sonepat under Sections 379, 411 IPC read with Section 136 of the Indian Electricity Act (Amend), 2003 are that it was on the basis of disclosure statement of his co9accused/non9applicant Karambir and Anil Kumar regarding theft of electricity, he has been apprehended on 09.02.2015 and the offences for which he has been hauled up, the maximum sentence of three years can be awarded, and which arguments could not be RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.07.17 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court



    controverted by learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Ramesh Chander, Police Station Sadar Sonepat. Keeping in view the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the substantial incarceration already undergone by him, this Court is of the opinion that further detention of the petitioner in the present case is not warranted. Accordingly, he is ordered to be released on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petition stands disposed off accordingly. "

$%&'&&( )*+'# ,-+& ,./ 0! 
 RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.07.17 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court