Arshdeep Singh @ Ashu v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-22571-2015 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22571-2015 Date of decision: 29.07.2015 Arshdeep Singh @ Ashu ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH PRESENT: Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana.

R.P. NAGRATH, J. (ORAL) This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 393 dated 04.11.2014 registered under Sections 148/149/323/326/307/506 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Ambala Cantt., District Ambala. There were 5 accused wanted in the instant case and all of them were arrested on different dates. Out of total 5 accused, 4 have already been released on regular bail. Prince, co-accused was arrested on 25.04.2015 and was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 16.07.2015 passed in CRM-M-20931-2015. The role attributed to the present petitioner was that he caught-hold the victim who was inflicted injuries. The trend of the accused is trying to evade the arrest and RISHU KATARIA 2015.07.29 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M-22571-2015 -2necessitating the recalling of victims being examined in this way is a matter of serious concern but the similarly situated co-accused, namely; Prince has been enlarged to bail. Petitioner is in custody from 27.04.2015.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and by applying the principle of parity, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner be admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court.

It is submitted by learned State counsel that supplementary challan against the petitioner was presented on 24.05.2015. The petitioner is directed to keep on appearing before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and would not commit any act which would amount to any threat to the witnesses nor he would conduct in a way that would delay the recording of evidence either by his absence or excuse of his counsel.

It is also made very clear that if there is breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution would be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. July 29, 2015 ( R.P. NAGRATH ) rishu JUDGE RISHU KATARIA 2015.07.29 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document