High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/18031/2020allowed

Parveen Alias Binu v. State Of Haryana

2020-08-27Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill2 pages

CRM-M No. 18031 of 2020 (O&M) -1In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRM-M No. 18031 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.8.2020 Parveen alias Binu ......Petitioner

Versus

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

Present:

Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL , J. (ORAL) Case is being taken up for hearing through video conferencing. The petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 230 dated 20.3.2016 under Sections 364-A, 386, 302 and 201 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station City Hisar, District Hisar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the petitioner has been named in the FIR nor any test identification parade has been conducted. Moreover, the weapon allegedly recovered from the petitioner has not been used by him and the car does not belong to him. He further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 28.3.2016. Learned counsel further points out that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide order dated 11.2.2020 has recorded that out of 31 prosecution witnesses, 26 witness have been examined. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Ranvir Singh, GURPREET SINGH 2020.08.27 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chadigarh submits that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and

CRM-M No. 18031 of 2020 (O&M) -2the co-accused. The daughter of the complainant was kidnapped and a ransom of Rs. 20.00 lacs was demanded. It is further submitted that out of 31 prosecution witnesses, 25 witnesses have been examined. The petitioner has been in custody since 28.3.2016. The material witnesses have already been examined and since 11.2.2020, situation is the same as no witness has since been examined. 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 August 27, 2020 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No GURPREET SINGH 2020.08.27 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chadigarh