High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/19974/2019dismissed

Lakhan v. State Of Haryana And Another

2019-07-04Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-19974 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 04, 2019 Lakhan

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Chetan Sharma, AAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr.Sandeep Berwal, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.109 dated 24.03.2019 under Sections 114, 307, 323, 34, 506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Hathin, District Palwal. Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant appeared and contested the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. VINEET GULATI 2019.07.05 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under some

CRM No.M-19974 of 2019 -2misunderstanding, the complainant had got registered FIR against the present petitioner. Even, learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant, who is present in the Court, stated that complainant has no objection if the bail is granted to the petitioner.

The perusal of the FIR shows that present petitioner is named in the FIR. He is stated to be armed with country made pistol. He fired from the pistol and Rani Devi suffered bullet injury on her left arm. Victiminjured Rani Devi is not party in this petition. Otherwise also, learned State counsel contended that country made pistol has been recovered from the petitioner.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present case, serious allegations against the petitioner and he being main accused, I do not find it a fit case where petitioner is entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail.

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

July 04, 2019 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VINEET GULATI 2019.07.05 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh