Arvind @ Tyson v. State Of Haryana

2023:PHHC:068388

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22884-2023 Date of Decision: May 11, 2023 ARVIND @ TYSON ........ Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present:

Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, A.A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate for complainant.

**** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 1.

By way of present petition filed under Section 439 CrPC, prayer has been made for grant of bail in case FIR No.86 dated 15.03.2022 registered under sections 307, 216 and 506 & Sections 25/25A/27/54/59 of Arms Act at P.S. City Mahendergarh, District Mahendergarh.

2.

As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the petitioner gave a firearm injury on the waist of the complainant towards the right side. 3.

In the present case, learned counsel for petitioner submits that investigation in the present case already stands concluded with the filing of challan followed by framing of charges on 30.10.2022, out of 26 prosecution witnesses none have been examined so far and thus the trial is likely to take some time. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is a young boy of 28 years of age with no past antecedents and the FIR in question is an off-shoot of some relationship between the petitioner and victim.

TEJWINDER SINGH 2023.05.12 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:068388 CRM-M-22884-2023 -24.

On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer made in the present petition while referring to serious nature of injury inflicted upon the person of victim, besides it, learned counsel for complainant has not opposed the prayer made in the present petition while submitting that the parties have in fact sorted out their differences.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

6.

Considering the fact that the petitioner is a young boy of 28 years of age and have already suffered incarceration for a period of one year and one month, besides the fact that the investigation already stands concluded with the filing of challan followed by framing of charges, however, no prosecution witness has been examined so far and thus undisputedly the trial is likely to take some time particularly when the complainant probably is not going to support the case of prosecution, I do not find any reason to extend the incarceration of the petitioner.

7.

Without commenting upon merits of the present petition, the same is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing of adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. 11.05.2023 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) Tejwinder JUDGE TEJWINDER SINGH 2023.05.12 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document