High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/41264/2014dismissed

Sukhpal @ Jagga v. State Of Haryana

2015-01-19Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM No.M-41264 of 2014 Date of Decision: January 19, 2015 Sukhpal alias Jagga

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Navneet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Deepak Grewal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.131 dated 23.04.2014 under Sections 148, 149, 323 and 302 IPC registered at Police Station Ganaur, District Sonipat.

Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition and also filed reply by of affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ganaur, which is taken on record.

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no evidence on record at this stage against the petitioner and he should be granted regular bail. VINEET GULATI 2015.01.28 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-41264 of 2014 -2I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that in the reply filed by DSP, Ganaur, it is stated that material witnesses namely Rajpal, Ram Singh, Sadhu Ram, Satish, Aades and Shyam Lal remain to be examined and the case is at initial stage. In the present case, charge has already been framed which means that, in no way, it can be held that there is no evidence against the petitioner. Secondly, as stated in the reply, six persons are still to be examined. This Court, at this stage, in the bail petition cannot held that no offence is made out on the record to connect the accused with the crime. It is also in the reply that petitioner may destroy the evidence and may put pressure on the material witnesses if bail is granted to him. The case is at initial stage and witnesses are still to be examined and in view of the nature and gravity of the offence, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioner is entitled to benefit of grant of regular bail.

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

January 19, 2015 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE VINEET GULATI 2015.01.28 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh