Amar Bahadur @ Tinku v. State Of Haryana

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

Criminal Misc. No.M-28430 of 2015 .....

Date of decision:10.9.2015 Amar Bahadur alias Tinku

...Petitioner

v.

State of Haryana

...Respondent

....

Coram:

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

Present:

Mr. Bijender Dhankhar, 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.266 dated 5.12.2013 registered for the offences under Section 392, 395, 397, 120-B and 216-A IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Sadar Dabwali, District Sirsa. 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 and accepted notice on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition. Police record is also available.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2015.09.11 12:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-28430 of 2015 [2] learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondentState and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that firstly, the petitioner is in custody since 18.6.2014 in this case and he is not required for investigation or interrogation purposes. The trial is already going on and it will take long time. The private witnesses have been examined in this case. The certified copies of the evidence have been placed on the record and it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the eye witness and the complainant have not specifically named the petitioner in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case at the instance of the co-accused.

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 his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

September 10, 2015.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2015.09.11 12:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh