High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/716/2017dismissed

Rajat v. Ut Of Chandigarh

2017-03-24Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj2 pages

CRM-M-716-2017 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Misc. No.M-716 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 24, 2017.

Rajat ..........PETITIONER(s).

VERSUS

Union Territory of Chandigarh ........RESPONDENT(s).

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Kamal Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sukant Gupta, A.P.P. for U.T., Chandigarh ******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.75 dated 09.03.2016 registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code at Police Station Manimajra. Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner Rajat has not been attributed fatal injury to deceased Jasbir Singh. As per prosecution, he was giving beatings to the deceased which could not be a reason for his death.

Prosecution has examined PW1 Dharam Singh before whom, the petitioner and other co-accused facing trial and suffered extra judicial confession regarding the offence committed by them. They also disclosed Sachin Mehta 2017.03.27 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-716-2017 -2their plan to kill Jasbir Singh. Complainant had appeared as PW2 and has identified petitioner and his co-accused who were causing injuries to Jasbir Singh. He has further stated that all the three accused accompanied by his brother Dharam Singh had come to PGI, Chandigarh before their arrest by the police.

The evidence produced on file do not support the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. While deciding bail application, it will not be appropriate to comment upon the evidence produced by the prosecution, as it may prejudice interest of the petitioner/accused or the prosecution. Keeping in view the fact that material witnesses have been examined who have fully supported the prosecution case, I find no reason to extend the benefit of regular bail to the petitioner. This bail application has no merits.

Dismissed.

( SURINDER GUPTA ) March 24, 2017 JUDGE Sachin M.

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No Sachin Mehta 2017.03.27 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH