Ravinder Gaur v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .....

Criminal Misc. No.M-13797 of 2019 Date of decision:04.04.2019 Ravinder Gaur

...Petitioner

v.

State of Haryana

...Respondent

....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Chetan Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the complainant. .....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.611 dated 15.6.2018 registered for the offences under Sections 148, 149, 302, 323 IPC and (Sections 325, 506, 452 and 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, which were added later on) at Police Station City Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. Notice of motion was issued in this case.

Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has put on appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Shiv Kumar, learned Advocate has appeared for the complainant and contested this petition.

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2019.04.05 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-13797 of 2019 [2] 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 the FIR has been got registered by Azad Rana. As per the allegations, the present petitioner is not named in the FIR but it is written that there were some other boys also, who were named as accused and the present petitioner is stated to be with the other coaccused. The learned State counsel has brought it to my notice that the petitioner had come with the other co-accused Deepak Rana etc. from the Gym and he was seen in the CCTV footage also. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; nature and gravity of the offences and the active participation of the petitioner in the commission of the offences, I find that he is required for custodial interrogation, therefore, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioner is entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

April 04, 2019.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2019.04.05 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh