High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/41294/2022allowed

Pardeep Kumar And ORS v. State Of Haryana And Others

2022-09-14Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-41294-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.09.2022 PARDEEP KUMAR AND ORS

...Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhanda, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) Through this petition, the petitioners seek regular bail in case bearing FIR No.123 dated 21.04.2022, registered under Sections 148, 149, 323 and 379-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act (added later on), at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though petitioners No.1 and 2 have specifically been named in the FIR, yet the fact remains that now a compromise has been effected between the parties on 03.09.2022; that co-accused, namely, Pawan Kumar, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court on 16.08.2022 and that the petitioners have been in custody since 25.04.2022.

Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 and does not dispute the factum of the compromise.

AMAN JAIN 2022.09.14 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-41294-2022 (O&M) -2Per contra, while opposing the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioners, learned State counsel does not dispute the custody period of the petitioners. He, however, submits that the petitioners along with their accomplices, with a common object, have caused injuries on the person of the injured and snatched his motorcycle. He further submits that post framing of the charges, the prosecution evidence is yet to commence.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have been in custody since 25.04.2022. Coaccused has already been enlarged on bail. Compromise has been effected between the parties. Prosecution evidence is yet to commence. In such circumstances, the trial of the case would take a long time to conclude. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars.

In view of the above and without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it should prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 14.09.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No AMAN JAIN 2022.09.14 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment