Vishnu v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-40893-2022 DECIDED ON: 30.01.2023 VISHNU .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present:

Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, AAG, Haryana.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) This is a petition seeking regular bail in FIR No.40, dated 09.03.2020, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Moohana, District Sonepat.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is behind the bars from the almost three years and during the course of trial, the complainant-injured has not supported the case of the prosecution against the petitioner to bring the allegations within the ambit of Section 307 of IPC. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate which is taken on record. According to the custody certificate the petitioner is behind the bars for the last 2 years, 10 months and 18 days and he is not involved in any other case whatsoever. He has also not controverted the fact that the complainant-injured has not supported the case of prosecution in their examination in chief as well as in cross-examination so far conducted during the course of trial.

MEENU 2023.01.30 19:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

CRM-M-40893-2022 -2Looking into the totality of facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the trial is likely to take some time and the petitioner is behind the bars for the last 2 years, 10 months and 18 days, therefore, the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

The present petition is, hereby, allowed.

(SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 30.01.2023 JUDGE Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MEENU 2023.01.30 19:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.