← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/38229/2024dismissed

Kanwar Singh v. State Of Haryana

2024-08-14Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil4 pages



              

  

!  

"

  

     #$

    $   

  

 

    

 ! """""

  $% #

RELIEF SOUGHT $%&&' &( &)*+,

-.-+&'/01 -2 #3 .# -.-#&+.-04 -5 ( 6  -78-36'9 ( 9  ('

('4! !

-

$/01&:

"To Incharge, Police Post No. 2, Ambala City, Sir, It is submitted that I, Apoorav, son of Sanjiv Kumar am resident of House No. 1885/53 B, Ranjit Nagar, Police Station Ambala City. We are two brothers. My younger brother Ayan aged around 19 years, is studying in B.COM 2nd year in Dayal Singh College, Delhi. Due to COVID

Pandemic he is at home since March 2020. Today at around 5.30 PM my brother received a call on his mobile in which two sim numbers 9996777440 and 9992497678 are there from his friend. He went from home saying that he would that after some time and at around 8 PM my father called on the phone of my younger brother Ayan and then we received information that somebody had fired a shot at my brother near Pigri Farm, Ambala City due to some enmity and one Sushil Kumar resident of Mohalla Ranjit Nagar with the help of others had taken him to Civil Hospital Ambala City where doctor after checking my brother declared him dead.

On receiving this information, I with other members of my family reached Civil Hospital Ambala City where we saw the dead body of my younger brother Ayan on whose forehead there was bullet injury and there was bullet injury near the ear towards right side as well. Somebody has killed my brother due to some enmity regarding which only those friends of my brothers can tell who had called him by making a call on his phone and whether they had shot him or some other person. It is requested that legal action be taken against the assailants."

   ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

;&  '!(/01&  ((/01 /& &!'&( !!!<(  $ !&!&   ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTSTATE:

+

; &!( ''& ( (!'

&=&  &&'( (&+.704(

)

&

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION 5.

(!&'(( '&(& (&=&&! &''&

0Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598''& "3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order - but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though may be considered but that by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail and the same should and ought always to be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail - more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter."

$4&'&  '!''>&'

&&%&'!& && 

0&! !&!=&

$0(('!(

*

('! &'4& %&&(

6   $&       Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No