High CourtsSINGLE BENCH

Dinesh vs The State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 29 November 2017 · Citation: (2017) 11 P&H CK 0012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shekher Dhawan
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=3863>Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973</a>, <a href=3863-439>Section 439</a> - Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail · <a href=1767>Indian Penal Code, 1860</a>, <a href=1767-302>Section 302</a>, <a href=1767-34>Se
CASE NUMBER
37723 of 2017
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

31 paragraphs · 350 words
1.

Present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 146 dated 15.5.2009, under Sections

302 and 34 IPC and Section 25(54) of Arms Act, registered at Police Station

Kundli, District Sonepat. The allegation against the petitioner is that he

along with his co-accused allegedly committed murder of Pardeep.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that 2 eye

witnesses of the prosecution, namely; Sunil son of Balwan and Mukesh son

of Rajinder, have already been examined before the learned trial Judge and

have not supported the prosecution case rather turned hostile. Apart from

that, all the main witnesses of the case, have been examined, who have not

supported the prosecution case. The petitioner is in custody since

18.11.2015 and trial of the case still to take some more time, so, he be

released on bail.

3.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Sukhbir,

contended that out of 23 prosecution witnesses, 15 have already been

examined and they have not implicated the present petitioner. It is not a

case of use of fire arm by the petitioner nor any such recovery of weapon

was effected from him.

4.

Taking into consideration all these facts and the fact that

remaining co-accused, namely; Monu and Rambir were convicted and

sentenced on 24.4.2015 in a separate trial, as there was evidence against

them, but in the present case, despite the fact that all the material witnesses

have been examined before the learned trial Judge, there is nothing to

implicate the present petitioner. However, without expressing anything on

merits of this case, least that may not prejudice rights of either of the parties

and the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 18.11.2015; the trial of the

case still to take some more time and no useful purpose would be served by

detaining the petitioner behind the bars, the present petitioner is ordered to

be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

5.

The present petition stands disposed of.