Naseem Ali v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH CRM-M-52197-2021(O&M) Date of Decision: NASEEM ALI
STATE OF HARYANA
Present:
Mr. Atul Partaap Dhankar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case bearing FIR No.42 dated 19.02.2020, registered under Sections 379B, 392, 411 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Murthal, District Sonipat.
Status report by way of affidavit dated 28.02.2022 of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Head Quarter, Sonipat, filed on behalf of the respondent-State, in the Registry, is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been involved in the present case; that the petitioner has been in custody since 18.12.2020 and that, on 27.10.2021, the complainant, while appearing as PW-1 before the learned trial Court has specifically stated that the petitioner is not a person, who had snatched the amount from him. He further submits that, as far as one other cases, registered and/or pending against the petitioner are concerned, the petitioner has AMAN JAIN 2022.03.03 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CRM-M-52197-2021(O&M) -2been indicted in those cases on the basis of the disclosure statements of the co-accused and is on bail.
On the other hand, while opposing the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, learned State counsel does not dispute the custody period of the petitioner. He, however, submits that the petitioner had actively participated in the occurrence. He further submits that out of 12 prosecution witnesses, only 01 has been examined so far. !
"#"$$%$% !
&' ( )*"
'
(
+ '
(
! !+ !! ( ! ( '' '
,
( ! !
!
!
& -.
'/
AMAN JAIN 2022.03.03 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document