Anoop v. State Of Haryana
Date of decision: 28th September, 2015 Anoop Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana Respondent 1.
Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.
Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present:
Mr. M.P.S. Chandel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Sharma, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana.
!"
# Allegations against the petitioner Anoop in this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No.76 dated 01.04.2015 registered at Police Station Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani under Section 412 IPC, are that in an earlier offence alleged to have been committed by him and his co9accused, two packets of body9cover and wheel9cover carrying the brand of Hero Honda were recovered from him.
Contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.M.P.S. Chandel, Advocate that similarly placed co9accused have been allowed bail by the trial Court and that it was only on the grounds of earlier cases faced by the present petitioner the same was declined RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.09.29 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court
to him could not be controverted by learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Baljit Singh, Police Station Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani. The petitioner admittedly is in custody since 04.04.2015.
Taking into consideration the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and in view of the principle of parity coupled with the fact that the trial will take a long time to conclude, this Court is of the opinion that further detention of the petitioner in the present case is not warranted. Accordingly, he is ordered to be released on regular bail to the satisfaction of trial Court. The present petition stands disposed off accordingly. "
# $%&$'($)*! RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.09.29 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court