Babli v. State Of Haryana

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

Criminal Misc. No.M-27007 of 2016 .....

Date of decision:11.8.2016 Babli

...Petitioner

v.

State of Haryana

...Respondent

....

Coram:

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

Present:

Mr. Sunil Saharan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.331 dated 18.4.2016 registered for the offences under Sections 285 and 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and (Sections 307 and 120-B IPC, which were added later on) at Police Station City Hisar, District Hisar.

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. B.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondentState and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that FIR in the present case has been Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.08.12 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-27007 of 2016 [2] registered on the statement of Sunita wife of Joginder. A perusal of the FIR shows that Kamal Yadav was driving the motorcycle and one Sumit alias Kali was pillion rider and they fired towards the gate of the house of the complainant. Accused Babli-present petitioner along with her son Kali had pressurized to make a compromise in some other case and pressurized other witnesses.

The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 28.4.2016. The trial of the case will take long time. She is not required for interrogation purposes. Keeping in view the allegations against the present petitioner, I find that no useful purpose will be served by keeping her in custody till the disposal of the case.

Therefore, 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, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to her furnishing personal bond in the sum of `35,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

August 11, 2016.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.08.12 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh