Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 3 docs
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 25 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Arms Act, 1959

User Queries
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chandan @Chandu vs State Of Haryana on 21 February, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. No. M- 35721 of 2011(O&M)

Date of Decision: February 21, 2012.

Chandan @Chandu.

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Haryana.

...... RESPONDENT (s)

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. J.S.Bains,

Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. S.S.Pattar, Sr.DAG, Haryana.

*****

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

This is an application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.169 dated 06.06.2009, under Sections 398/307/411/420/467/468//471 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at police station Sadar Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. CRM No.M-35721 of 2011 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was taken in custody by the police in FIR no.192 dated 06.11.2009, under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, registered at police station City Moga. It is further contended that he was arrested in this case in March, 2011 when he was produced before the Court pursuant to warrant issued. It is also contended that he is already on bail in FIR no.192 dated 06.11.2009. It is further contended that there is no evidence against the petitioner in this case and that even his name has not been mentioned in the FIR. Rather he has been implicated just on the statement of co-accused. It is also contended that there is no recovery from him. It is further contended that he has been continuing in custody since March, 2011 in this case otherwise he is in custody since 16.11.2009 as earlier he was in custody in some other case. These facts have not been disputed by learned counsel for the State.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, the instant application for regular bail filed on behalf of Chandan @Chandu is allowed.

Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Kurukshetra. CRM No.M-35721 of 2011 3 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA )

February 21, 2012. JUDGE 'om'