High CourtsSingle Bench

Ajay @ Pardhan vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 2 November 2018 · Citation: (2018) 11 P&H CK 0009

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 201, 302, 364 · Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(2)(v)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No.47931 of 2018 (O&M)
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

17 paragraphs · 338 words

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in a case registered vide FIR No.116 dated 12.3.2017 under Section 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of

Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act registered at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat.

The FIR was registered pursuant to recovery of a dead body of son of the complainant from the agricultural fields. The matter was investigated and

three persons were found to be involved in the present case namely Aman (Juvenile) Ashu (non-applicant) and Ajay(petitioner).

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case of blind murder and there is no evidence worth credence against the petitioner and

that in any case material witnesses have already resiled from their statements. The learned counsel in this context has drawn the attention of

testimony of PW-1 Bhagat Singh who during his examination-in-chief has stated that the accused Ajay and Rishipal had not committed any crime. To

a similar effect are the statements of PW-2 Samey Ram and PW-5 Satwayan, which are also annexed with this application. The learned counsel has

thus prayed for grant of regular bail.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel has opposed the application by stating that the circumstantial evidence which has been collected during

the course of interrogation clearly reveals the complicity of the petitioner and that no case for grant of bail is made out.

Having considered the rival submissions addressed before this Court and bearing in mind the fact that the case is solely based on circumstantial

evidence and that material eye witnesses have already resiled and also that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about more than 1 year,

no useful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner behind bars. Accordingly, petitioner-Ajay @ Pardhan is ordered to be released

on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate Sonepat.

The petition stands accepted accordingly.