Naveen v. State Of Haryana

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

Criminal Misc. No.M-28219 of 2015 .....

Date of decision:28.8.2015 Naveen

...Petitioner

v.

State of Haryana

...Respondent

....

Coram:

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

Present:

Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anmol Malik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.42 dated 10.2.2013 registered for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Rohtak, District Rohtak. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Anmol Malik, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition. Police record is also available.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondent-State HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2015.09.07 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-28219 of 2015 [2] and have gone through the record.

From the record, I find that the FIR has been registered on the statement of Karambir Sarpanch, who found the dead body lying in the `Kacha' portion of the road side having blue mark around the neck. As per the prosecution version, Satish son of Jai Pal, who was doing service in the Boarder Security Force, was found murdered by Sudesh in connivance with the present petitioner Naveen against whom there is allegation that he has relations with Sudesh wife of the deceased. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offences and the fact that the present petitioner is the main accused involved in the commission of the crime and further that 24 witnesses have already been examined and only six witnesses remain to be examined, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of regular bail. The petitioner is in custody since 11.3.2013.

Keeping in view the custody period, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial by giving short adjournments and if necessary day to day adjournments.

With these observations, the bail petition is dismissed. August 28, 2015.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2015.09.07 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh