Samaydin v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH (1) CRM No.M-28924 of 2016 (O&M) Samaydin
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(2) CRM No.M-33018 of 2016 (O&M) Rashid
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
Date of Decision: October 17, 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present:
Mr.Arjun Atri, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Vikramjit Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.
**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Both the above-mentioned cases are taken up together being arisen from same FIR.
Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.136 dated 22.07.2016 under Section 13(2) of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Vineet Gulati 2016.10.18 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Act, 2015, registered at Police Station Nagina, District Mewat, Haryana.
CRM No.M-28924 of 2016 and connected case -2Notice of motion was issued in both the cases. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petitions. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. The petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are not required for custodial interrogation. Nothing is to be recovered from them. The FIR has been registered on the basis of secret information. The petitioners are stated to have run away from the spot and the secret informer identified the persons running away. The name of the secret informer has not been mentioned in the FIR nor it is supposed to be mentioned. The trial of the case will take long time. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners to custody.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case, where the petitioners are entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the present petitions are accepted and the order dated 22.08.2016 passed in CRM No.M-28924 of 2016 and order dated 19.09.2016 passed in CRM No.M-33018 of 2016 granting interim bail to the petitioners, are made absolute.
October 17, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2016.10.18 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh