High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/24209/2021allowed

Mukul Alias Jadu v. State Of Haryana

2021-08-16Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

CRM-M-24209 of 2021 #1#

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24209 of 2021 Date of Decision: 16.08.2021 Mukul @ Jadu ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU

Present:

Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surender Singh, AAG, Haryana.

HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J Prayer is for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.72 dated 13.05.2020 under Sections 307,120-B and Section 25 of the Arms Act (Sections 506,201 and 34 IPC added during investigation) registered at P.S Bond Kalan, District Charkhi Dadri.

FIR was lodged on the statement of Baljeet Singh, who stated that on 12.05.2020 at about 9.00 p.m, he and his son Pankaj were present at their home. Two boys stopped their motorcycle in front of their house. On hearing the noise, complainant came out of the room. He saw that the boys were carrying fire arms in their hands. One of them fired at the complainant with intention to kill him while the other boy (petitioner) fired at the son of the complainant. Thereafter both of them ran away from the spot along with their motorcycle. Son of the complainant received a missed call on his mobile. When son of the complainant called back, the caller, alleged to be the petitioner, told son of the complainant that the bullet was fired by him. Petitioner further threatened that if the complainant or his son ever went to the liquor shop, which is in the name of one Parveen Kumar in which the MANOJ KUMAR 2021.08.20 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-24209 of 2021 #2# petitioner is stated to be a partner, then they would be fired at their chest. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even as per the FIR, no injury was sustained either by the complainant or his son. The petitioner is in custody since 15.08.2020.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, points out that the petitioner is a habitual offender. There are seven other cases of similar nature registered against the petitioner.

Without commenting anything on the merits of the case and also bearing in mind the custody period coupled with the fact that it is a case of no injury and that the trial is not likely to conclude in near future, in my opinion, no useful purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner behind bars any further. The petition, as such, is accepted. The petitioner Mukul @ Jadu is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

This present petition stands accepted accordingly. August 16, 2021 (Harinder Singh Sidhu) manoj Judge Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2021.08.20 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document