Yadvinder Singh v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH (i) CRM No.M-36262 of 2017 (O&M) Yadvinder Singh
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(ii) CRM No.M-37560 of 2017 (O&M) Sukhvinder Singh
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana
...Respondent
Date of Decision: November 02, 2017
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present:
Mr.Manoj Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM No.M-36262 of 2017). Mr.Harparteek S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM No.M-37560 of 2017). Mr.Kuldeep Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.
Mr.Amit Rana, Advocate for the complainant.
**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Both the above-mentioned cases are taken up together as the same have arisen from same FIR.
Vineet Gulati 2017.11.03 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
CRM No.M-36262 of 2017 and connected petition -2for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.342 dated 17.08.2017 under Section 136 of the Electricity Act 2003 and Section 304-A IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Fatehabad, District Fatehabad. Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant appeared and contested the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the perusal of the FIR, I find that Yadvinder Singh and Dalbir Singh, father of other petitioner Sukhvinder Singh have shifted line of 11 KV of tubewell of Yadvinder Singh, which directly connected to the tubewell of Didar Singh at the time of raising new house of Dalbir Singh. As per prosecution version, four persons have died due to electrocution in the present case. Yadvinder Singh is named in the F"IR whereas Sukhvinder Singh is son of other accused. He is also nominated in the present case.
Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence and the fact that four persons have died due to illegal shifting of 11 KV power line at the time of construction of house of Dalbir Singh, father of petitioner Sukhvinder Singh, I do not find it a fit case where petitioners are entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail.
Therefore, finding no merit in both the petitions, the same are dismissed.
November 02, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2017.11.03 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh