High CourtsSingle Bench

Aakash @ Kalu vs State Of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 6 January 2022 · Citation: (2022) 01 P&H CK 0019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Lalit Batra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 173, 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 307 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 41327 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

22 paragraphs · 391 words

Lalit Batra, J

Case has been taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing.

This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C has been moved for grant of regular bail to petitioner- Aakash @ Kalu in case F.I.R. No.204 dated 17.07.2021

under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sector 17, HUDA, Jagadhri, District

Yamunanagar.

Learned counsel for petitioner inter alia contends that version, as alleged in the FIR, is totally concocted one and there is no iota of truth therein. He

further submits that petitioner was not named in the FIR, whereas name of petitioner surfaced in the array of accused for the first time in terms of

disclosure statement rendered by co-accused Munish @ Monu. He further submits that nobody was injured in the alleged firing. He further submits

that petitioner is languishing in custody since 05.09.2021 and he is no more required by the Police for any investigation purpose as after completion of

investigation, final report as envisaged under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Challan) has already been presented in Court. He further submits that since trial of

the case would take sufficient time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody further and he may be

released on bail.

On the other hand, learned State counsel while opposing instant petition has vehemently argued that keeping in view seriousness of offence, petitioner

does not deserve the concession of bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

At this stage, without commenting anything on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the outcome of the trial but taking into consideration the fact

that petitioner is languishing in custody since 05.09.2021; that petitioner is no more required by the Investigating Agency for investigation purpose; that

Challan has already been presented in Court and since trial of the case would take sufficient time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by

detaining the petitioner in custody further, thus, he deserves the concession of bail.

In view of above, instant petition for grant of regular bail moved by petitioner- Aakash @ Kalu is allowed and he is ordered to be released on bail on

his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, District Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, as

the case may be.