Karamjeet Singh And ANR v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

CRM-M-42533-2020 (O&M).

Decided on: December 22, 2020.

Karamjeet Singh and another .. Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Haryana .. Respondent * * *

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI * * * PRESENT Mr.Tarunveer Vashist, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr.Naveen K. Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (ORAL ) Through Video Conference The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking regular bail in FIR No.440 dated 24.9.2020, under Sections 323, 325, 307 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 32-33, Karnal, District Karnal. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that present case is a case of road rage and a fight took place between the petitioners who were driving the truck with the injured who was driving car.

He has further submitted that it is not a case of previous enmity between both the parties and therefore, there was no motive attributable to the petitioners at all. He has further submitted that provisions of Section 307 IPC are not attracted in the present case and otherwise also the injuries allegedly caused by the petitioners were blunt in nature and the investigation in the present case is already complete and the challan stands presented. He has further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and no useful purpose would be served in case incarceration of the petitioners is perpetuated despite the fact that investigation is already complete.

On the the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that it is correct that investigation in the present case is complete and all the recoveries have been made. So far as custody period of the petitioners is concerned, the petitioners are in custody since 24.9.2020. So far as the motive attributed to the petitioners to attract the provisions of Section 307 IPC is concerned, the learned State counsel has submitted that since it is a case of serious nature, therefore, Section 307 IPC was included. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The custody period of the petitioners as well as the fact that investigation is complete and challan stands presented is not disputed. It is also not disputed that all the recoveries have been made. On being asked from the learned State counsel that in case the petitioners are released on bail whether there is any likelihood that they may influence the witnesses or tamper with the record, no satisfactory

explanation has been given by the learned State counsel in this regard. Consequently, considering the totality of the circumstances, I deem it fit and appropriate to admit the petitioners on bail. The present petition is allowed. It is ordered that the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on merits of the case and is meant only for the purpose of decision of present petition. December 22, 2020.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI) raj arora JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No Whether reportable Yes / No