← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/19406/2020allowed

Farookh v. State Of Haryana

2020-08-13Mr. Justice Jitendra Chauhan2 pages

CRM-M-19406-2020 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19406-2020 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.08.2020 Farookh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

Present:

Mr. Talim Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajiv Goel, D.A.G., Haryana.

Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for the complainant.

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) The matter has been taken up through video-conferencing in the light of the pandemic COVID-19 situation and as per instructions. The instant petition has been preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in FIR No. 205, dated 13.06.2020, registered under Sections 379-A, 188 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Punhana, District Nuh. Reply by the State filed in the Court, is taken on record. Copy thereof has already been supplied to the learned counsel opposite. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that during the pendency of the petition, the matter has been compromised between the parties.

JYOTI 2020.08.14 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-19406-2020 -2Learned counsel for the complainant submits that she has instructions to state that she will have no objection in case, bail is allowed to the petitioner.

Learned State counsel informs that petitioner is not involved in any other FIR.

Heard.

Considering the fact that the matter has been compromised and petitioner is not involved in any other FIR; the petitioner is in custody in this case since 14.06.2020; the complainant has no objection in case the petitioner is admitted to bail; the Court feels that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the accused in further incarceration. In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail during the pendency of the trial, on furnishing bail bonds with two local sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned. However, anything noticed hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 13.08.2020 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) jyoti-II JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned :

Yes No Whether Reportable :

Yes No JYOTI 2020.08.14 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document