High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/26209/2022allowed

Sourabh v. State Of Haryana

2022-06-15Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi2 pages

CRM-M-26209-2022 (O & M) ::1::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-26209-2022 (O & M) Date of decision:15.06.2022 Sourabh ...... Petitioner V/s State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:

Mr. Ahish Grewal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The prayer in the present petition is for the grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner in a case bearing FIR No.120 dated 04.02.2022 under Sections 323, 427, 506, 34 IPC (Section 326 IPC added later on) registered with Police Station Yamuna Nagar City, District Yamuna Nagar.

The brief facts of the case are that a statement of Sumit son of Surender Kumar was recorded that he alongwith his friends Satnam Singh and Akash went to the APPLE Store to buy a laptop their i20 car bearing No. HR06Y-2777 struck another car (Alto) bearing No.HR05AF-0835. The boy sitting in the other car (Alto) ran away from the spot after leaving the car there and another boy sitting on the second seat, namely, Sachin also ran away from the spot. After about one and a half hours when three of them SUKHPREET KAUR 2022.06.15 22:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-26209-2022 (O & M) ::2::

came out of the APPLE Store, Sachin, the boy with the Alto car, brought about 15-20 boys with him, namely Gagan Gandhi and Saurabh, etc.. All of them were armed with iron pipes, sticks and bricks. On arriving there, they all attacked the complainant-side and Satnam Singh received injuries. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a compromise (Annexure P-2) has been effected between the parties, and therefore, the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has committed a serious offence for which he does not deserves the concession of bail. He, however, does not dispute the factum of compromise effected between the parties.

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Admittedly, it is a dispute between young boys on a trivial issue after which a compromise already stands effected between the parties. The petitioner is in custody since 22.05.2022 and as such, his further incarceration is not required.

Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner, namely, Sourabh, is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE June 15, 2022 sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUKHPREET KAUR 2022.06.15 22:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document