High CourtsSingle Bench

Ankush vs State Of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 12 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 P&H CK 0166

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 324, 323, 326, 506
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 1758 Of 2021(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

7 paragraphs · 346 words

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J

1.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.316, dated 18.05.2020 under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 506 of IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Karnal, District Karnal.

2.

Learned counsel contends that it is a case of version and cross-version in which both the sides received injuries. He further contends that one person from the side of the petitioner was killed in the occurrence in question. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner was alleged to be armed with a Kassi and was attributed an injury on the head of the complainant attracting the mischief of Section 326 IPC.

3.

Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 09th June, 2020 and only charges have been framed till date, hence, there is no likelihood of the trial concluding anytime in the near future, so the petitioner may be extended the concession of regular bail.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions from SI Gurdyal has not been able to controvert the fact that it is a case of version and cross-version, in which one person from the petitioner's side lost his life. She has conceded that injury attributed to the petitioner is a Kassi blow on the head of the complainant, which was opined to be grievous in nature.

5.

Heard.

6.

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I deem it a fit case for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioner, as the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future, more so, in the prevailing conditions due to the outbreak of COVID-19. The petition as such is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.