High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/18408/2020dismissed

Surjeet Maurya v. State Of Haryana

2020-08-28Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan2 pages

211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18408-2020 Date of decision: August 28, 2020 Surjeet Maurya ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:

Mr. Ritesh Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG, Haryana.

(through video conferencing) ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.357 dated 13.6.2019 registered under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, at Police Station Surjkund, District Faridabad.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegations in the FIR registered at the instance of one Vijay @ Chandi, on 13.6.2019, when he has gone to Badwali lake for a walk, he noticed a dead person and gave information to the police in this regard. Later on, when a case regarding the death of an unknown lady was registered as a name Manisha was found on her arm.

Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that during the investigation, it was found that the deceased Manisha has left her parental home on 10.6.2019 and on 19.6.2019, her father gave an application implicating petitioner-Surjeet as main suspect and petitioner was arrested. SATISH KUMAR 2020.08.28 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-18408-2020 -2Counsel for the petitioner further submits that out of 19 prosecution witnesses, only 03 have been examined so far and the other co-accused of the petitioner, i.e. Vimal, a juvenile; Bhim @ Anu as well as Prince @ Lali have been granted the concession of regular bail, either by this Court or by the trial Court/Juvenile Justice Board. In reply, learned State counsel has, however, submitted that in all, 07 prosecution witnesses have been examined and on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the petitioner, a motorcycle used in the crime and two phones were recovered.

Learned State counsel, on the basis of the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, has further submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner as his disclosure was followed by recovery of articles, which has connected the petitioner with the offence. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the allegations in the FIR, the evidence collected during the investigating and also in view of the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, I find no ground to grant the regular bail to the petitioner. Dismissed.

( ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ) August 28, 2020 JUDGE satish Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No SATISH KUMAR 2020.08.28 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document