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
7 paragraphs · 207 wordsSatish Kumar Mittal, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail incase FIR No.45 dated 12.3.2005 under Sections 307, 34 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Matlauda, District Panipat.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the FIR.
The petitioner is in custody since 14.2.2006.
In this case, as per the version given in the FIR, two persons came in the shop of Ravi and one of them caused bullet injury on Ravi. As per the investigation, the petitioner was not among the two boys but it was found that he was driving a car in which the aforesaid two accused ran away. Undisputedly, the only evidence against the petitioner is the disclosure statement of the co-accused, in which they alleged that the petitioner was also present in the car.
Till now, no prosecution witness has been examined and the trial is not likely to be concluded soon.
In view of the aforesaid facts, without expressing anything on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
Bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.