High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/15015/2020allowed

Deenu v. State Of Haryana

2020-09-11Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill2 pages

CRM-M No. 15015 of 2020 (O&M) -1In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRM-M No. 15015 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.9.2020 Deenu ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana assisted by ASI Kailash.

Mr. Ferry Sofat, Advocate for the victim-Vakeela.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL , J. (ORAL) Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing. The petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 0819 dated 18.10.2019 under Sections 148, 149, 302, 323, 452, 506 IPC registered at Police Station Nuh, District Nuh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he has attributed an injury with farsa from its reverse side on the nose of Vakeela but as per the report of MLR, there is no injury on the nose of Vakeela. Learned counsel further submits that the occurrence took place on 14.10.2019 but the present FIR was registered on 18.10.2019 and there is delay of 04 days in lodging the FIR. It is also submitted that the present FIR is a counter-blast to FIR No. 0813 dated GURPREET SINGH 2020.09.11 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chadigarh 15.10.2019 (Annexure P-2) got registered by the petitioner against the

CRM-M No. 15015 of 2020 (O&M) -2complainant party. He further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 30.12.2019.

Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the victim submits that there are four other cases registered against the petitioner and as per the disclosure statement, he has attributed injury to the deceased also. However, it has not been disputed that only one injury has been attributed to the petitioner.

In the present case, the injury attributed to the petitioner is on the nose of Vakeela, which has not been mentioned in the MLR and as far as the other cases against the petitioner are concerned, he is on bail in those cases. The petitioner has been in custody since 30.12.2019. The trial will take time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

(HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE September 11, 2020 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No GURPREET SINGH 2020.09.11 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chadigarh