Parvinder @ Rakesh v. State Of Haryana



  
  



  

 

 !

!"#$# % & '&


  
       
 ( ) & *
 * *  
       

     ! " 

#   * * 

+ & ,-./ $ %       !    &'(   )  )*!
       ! +!  +    ,-

.$$(&  /0$//0$1    $&2 $&( '/'

'1(34 506   -
)    /575&75(   *   8  '01 '0/ '/5 -
)     '1(34 -
) ! ! 9   
!   

  ,+ / :  !    +*           +     *   +*       ;    !! 

  ! ;  3      *!! <      ; !      ! 

+*     + !

! *!          ;  !

   3   *! % %    

 

"   been extended the benefit of regular bail by this Court vide Annexure P-9 on 21.07.2023 and the present petitioner is at parity with the aforesaid two coaccused because qua the aforesaid two co-accused also the injuries were attributable by using Danda and baseball bat and the injuries attributable towards the present petitioner was by using a baseball bat. He submitted that although the present is the successive bail petition but now the other co-accused have been granted regular bail, the petitioner may be considered for the grant of regular bail. He also submitted that one another co-accused, namely, Ritik @ Rankit also has been granted regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He further submitted that now 24 prosecution witnesses out of 27 have already bene examined, but the prosecution has now moved application under Section 311   )  )*!
    !!      ;

;   + !!; +  ! ! )    !     *  *  * *     !      ;       *

 * +        ! +!   +*      !        !    3.

On the other hand,   ! "  ! #  has stated that so far as the period of custody of the petitioner is concerned, the same is correct and it is also correct that the aforesaid co-accused have already been extended the benefit of regular bail. He has however submitted that the petitioner is the main accused in the present case.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.

It is a case where the petitioner has already faced incarceration for



about five years and seven months. T  3   *! % %     "   been extended the benefit of regular bail by this Court vide Annexure P-9 on 21.07.2023 and the role of the aforesaid two co-accused and the present petitioner were inflicting of injuries by Danda and baseball bat respectively. Be that as it may, the long custody of the petitioner is five years and seven months and now at this stage an application under Section 311   )  )*!
  is moved by the prosecution and the same was allowed by the trial Court as per learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the trial of the case may take much more time and apart from the above it is not in dispute that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and has clean antecedents. Furthermore,   !

      !   !        !   +!

  * +  * <    !   ;

 6 ) =! the present petition is allowed. %  !! + !    ! +!

  =    

+<     +!

+         ! ! )7      1 ;  +  + !!  +    >

    *       ! *              ,* * /   010$

+

 

?  

 @ 7. ? +!  @ 7.