Veer Arjun v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

Criminal Misc. No.M-48222 of 2017 .....

Date of decision:16.7.2018 Veer Arjun

...Petitioner

v.

State of Haryana

...Respondent

....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr. Ramnish Puri, Advocate for the complainant. .....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.558 dated 28.9.2016 registered for the offences under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506 and 302 IPC at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar.

Notice of motion has been issued in this case. Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Ramnish Puri, Advocate has appeared for the complainant and contested this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel appearing for the respondent-State and have gone through the record.

Harpal Singh Parmar 2018.07.18 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-48222 of 2017 [2] From the record, I find that the FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of Sanjay alias Bhola. The petitioner has not been named in the FIR and no role has been attributed to him. He has not caused any injury. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.2.2016. The challan has already been presented. The trial of the case is likely to take long time. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody till the final disposal of the case. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

However, nothing stated above will constitute my opinion on the merits of the case.

July 16, 2018.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No Harpal Singh Parmar 2018.07.18 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh