Ashok Alias Shoki v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-15507 of 2019 Date of Decision: July 17, 2019 Ashok alias Shoki

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Rajkapoor Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Navdeep Singh, AAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.240 dated 05.06.2016 under Sections 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Safidon, District Jind.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that present petitioner is named in the FIR. It is a case of direct evidence and eye witness has also identified the accused-petitioner in the Court. Learned State counsel has brought it to the VINEET GULATI 2019.07.19 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-15507 of 2019 -2notice of this Court that 16 more FIRs have been registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in most of the cases, petitioner has already been acquitted. Learned State counsel has also brought it to the notice of this Court that one injured namely Satpal, is still to be examined.

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 and in view of the fact that one of the injured witness is still to be examined and there is every chance of tampering with the evidence, I do not find it a fit case where petitioner is entitled to benefit of regular bail.

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

However, as the petitioner is stated to have been in custody since 08.07.2016 i.e. for the last more than three years, therefore, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial by giving short adjournments and if required, even day to day adjournments. The Investigating Officer and SHO concerned are directed to produce the witnesses before the trial Court at the earliest.

July 17, 2019 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VINEET GULATI 2019.07.19 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh