Amardeep v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-20071-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:-5.8.2024 Amardeep ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Gaurav Grover, Advocate with Ms. Charu Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.

***** FIR No.

Dated Police Station Section/s 21.6.2023 Bhattu Kalan, Fatehabad, District Fatehabad 307, 323, 324, 325, 326, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of the aforementioned FIR.

2.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Dharambir, wherein it alleged that on 18.6.2023 at about 07:30 P.M. when he was sitting in front of his house on a cot, then Amit, Amardeep (petitioner), Banti and Ramlu came there on a motorcycle. Amit, who was carrying a knife inflicted a blow on his neck. Amardeep (petitioner), who was also carrying a knife inflicted a blow with the same upon complainant's neck. Banti inflicted a blow on complainant's cheek and Ramlu gave fist and kick blows to the complainant. Pankaj Kakkar 2024.08.05 20:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M-20071-2024 (O&M) ( 2 ) 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that, in any case, the complainant while in the witness-box did not support the case of the prosecution and absolutely resiled from his statement. Learned counsel has today passed on a copy of statement of PW-1 Dharambir (complainant) recorded on 19.7.2024, a persual of which indeed shows that the complainant had absolutely resiled from his statement. The copy of statement of PW-1 Dharambir (complainant) is taken on record.

4.

Learned State counsel has informed that the petitioner as on date has been behind bars since the last about 8 months and 16 days and that he is not wanted in any other case.

5.

This Court has considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 6.

Without commenting anything as regards merits of the case, but having regard to the custody of the petitioner i.e. about 8 months and 16 days and also the fact that the complainant has already resiled, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 5.8.2024 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) Pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No Pankaj Kakkar 2024.08.05 20:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document