Janshu v. State Of Haryana
!" #$%$ &'(") * +, (-
' ./)0)
)
"# $ %%%
)-1/2' &
'
()* + *,*-
.
/
' # 012
'
"3 01 4
29.06.2024 Khol, District Rewari 323, 325, 427, 506 and 34 of IPC, 1860 * +
!
#
01" /
'
' 2# 22 /## /
/ *),5*,*( # /"
#" /
!
##/ " #"
'# #
!
.
#!
'
# # & !
2#
!
#/
#
/ 2
" "
/'!. ! "
.
"
!
' .
" #
/
' !.
!#
" !
!#
"/
2/ "
" # ' .
& !
# 2# '
2 '
# # "
/
01
/
/
'
"4
/
!
((, 1 7" /
2
#
/
' # " !" 2
85,9*,*( - &
'
'
/
/ ' !
# '
# # 2#
!
2
1!
# 2#
# /"
# ! '
2"
# !
# : #
" # / 01 *8,
*;,5*,*(/ 2# & 01" /
!
'#
01
/
!
#
/
: & '
!
'# '/
&
/
'
## 4.
The respondent-State has advance notice of the petition and status report has been filed by him. It is argued by learned State counsel that the petitioner is a habitual offender and three more cases of similar nature
have been registered against him. It is argued that keeping in view the nature of the allegations, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. 5.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.
6.
The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have opened an assault upon the complainant on the night of 28.06.2024 and caused simple as well as grievous injuries to him. A cross case has been registered against the complainant party on the basis of complaint lodged by father of the petitioner. The subject offencs are triable by the Magistrate. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. His custodial interrogation is not required. As such, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case for extending benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be extended benefit of anticipatory bail, subject to '
# #7
2
"
##'
' #' # #7 /'
!
the following conditions:-
##!
/
## '
/
<
" :
##
# # 2.
!
!:
"
!
2< 2 !# /!
!
7
=
##
# !
" ' # 9 1 !
#
'
!
#7 ##'
2
#
!!
##
!!
!
#" ) !#
'
2
'
##
'
6
2
3
)4 (") * +, (-