Sonu @ Parveen Kumar v. State Of Haryana

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

Criminal Misc. No.M-9020 of 2017 (O&M) .....

Date of decision:17.3.2017 Sonu alias Parveen Kumar

...Petitioner

v.

State of Haryana

...Respondent

....

Coram:

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

Present:

Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. .....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.363 dated 6.11.2009 registered for the offences under Sections 148, 149 and 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Sampla, District Rohtak. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

From the record, I find that the present petitioner Sonu alias Parveen Kumar is named in the FIR. He was armed with a country made pistol and as per the allegations, the present petitioner and co-accused Pardeep had fired one shot each from their respective pistols on the complainant with an intention to kill. The pellets hit his left hand and left side of his waist.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.03.17 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-9020 of 2017 (O&M) [2] case, nature and gravity of the offences and the fact that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation, I do not find it a fit case where the present petitioner is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

March 17, 2017.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.03.17 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh