Dalip v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-42237 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 11, 2017 Dalip
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present:
Mr.A.S.Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.67 dated 28.04.2016 under Sections 302, 449, 120-B IPC and Sections 25 and 30 of the Arms Act and Section 66A of I.T. Act, registered at Police Station Lakhan Majra, District Rohtak. Notice of motion.
On asking of the Court, Mr.Siddharth Sanwara, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana who is present in the Court, accepted notice on behalf of the respondent-State and contested the petition. Mr.Anshumaan Dalal, Advocate appeared and filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant and contested the petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counse and have gone through the record. Vineet Gulati 2017.01.12 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh As per the FIR in the present case, the allegation against the
CRM No.M-42237 of 2016 -2petitioner is that he got killed Amar Nath, brother of the complainant. The enmity was with the present petitioner due to the contest of election for the post of Sarpanch. The statements of the witnesses have not been recorded so far. Furthermore, it is argued that the accused is also giving threats to the complainant party.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the nature and gravity of the offence, I do not find it a fit case where petitioner is entitled to benefit of regular bail. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same dismissed.
January 11, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2017.01.12 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh