High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/8734/2017allowed

Rajuddin v. State Of Haryana

2017-04-19Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-8734 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 19, 2017 Rajuddin

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Saleem Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.B.S.Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.79 dated 14.02.2017 under Section 5/13(2) of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, registered at Police Station Nuh District Mewat. Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that the FIR was registered on the basis of secret information. The allegations against the petitioner are that he was involved in cow slaughtering and on that day, he tied two calves with kikkar Vineet Gulati 2017.04.20 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-8734 of 2017 -2tree in village Akeda and preparing to take to Rajasthan for the purpose of slaughtering. On seeing the government vehicle, accused escaped from the spot after leaving the cows. As per the FIR, the present petitioner escaped from the spot and he was identified only by the secret informer. The petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is not required for custodial interrogation. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The trial of the case will take long time. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to custody.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case, where the petitioner is entitled to benefit of grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the present petition is accepted and the order dated 16.03.2017 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute. April 19, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2017.04.