Vikrant v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-27239-2017 & CRM-M-10209-2018 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : May 25, 2018 1.

Criminal Misc. No. M-27239 of 2017 Vikrant

...Petitioner

versus State of Haryana ....Respondent 2.

Criminal Misc. No. M-10209 of 2018 Parveen alias Jadugar

...Petitioner

versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh Present :

Mr. SR Hooda, Advocate, for petitioner-Vikrant Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate, for petitioner-Parveen alias Jadugar Mr. Paramjeet Singh, AAG, Haryana for the State Fateh Deep Singh, J. (Oral) Since both these matters have arisen out of one and the same FIR, therefore, both these bail applications filed by petitioner Vikrant and Parveen alias Jadugar are being taken up for disposal together by this

CRM-M-27239-2017 & CRM-M-10209-2018 -2common order. The present case was registered on the statement of complainant Ranbir wherein he alleged that his family had history of old dispute and enmity with family of Mainpal and there have been murders on both sides. It is alleged that when the complainant along with his bodyguard were coming to attend court proceedings on the way between village Munim Pur and Kaloi, 7/8 boys who were in a motor vehicle out of whom Naveen son of Mainpal and Raja were identified and all these persons attacked the complainant with fire arms leading to injuries to the gunmen Mahavir and Jai Singh.

Counsel for the petitioners contend that both the petitioners have undergone actual period of detention of 05 years, 09 months and 07 days which is conceded to at the bar by learned State counsel who has also placed on record the latest custody certificates to this effect. Keeping in view the offences for which the petitioners have been hauled up and the period of incarceration, though bail applications are sought to be opposed with much vehemence by the learned State counsel, without going into the merits of the case, in the light of the fact that trial is not likely to conclude in the near future, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners in custody in view of the substantive incarceration, impels this Court to allow both the present bail applications. However, keeping in view their previous antecedents and history of enmity, the petitioners shall be released on bail subject to furnishing of personal surety

CRM-M-27239-2017 & CRM-M-10209-2018 -3bonds in the sum of Rs 5 lacs each with two sureties of the like amount before the trial court accepting the bonds that they shall not commit any offence while on bail. The prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail in the present matter in case the petitioners violate this undertaking.

Both the petitions stand disposed off accordingly. ( Fateh Deep Singh ) May 25, 2018 Judge 'tiwana'

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No Whether Reportable ?

Yes/No