High CourtsSingle Bench

Hanuman vs State Of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 13 July 2020 · Citation: (2020) 07 P&H CK 0058

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arun Monga, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 307, 324, 326 · Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(i)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 15983 Of 2020 (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

18 paragraphs · 336 words

Arun Monga, J

1.

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No. 606 dated 04.10.2018, registered under Sections 324, 326 read with Section 34 IPC(to which

Section 307 IPC was added later on) and under Section 3(1)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989, Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar.

2.

Per FIR allegations, on 02.10.2018 the petitioner and his accomplice assaulted the complainant. The motive attributed was that the petitioner was

litigating with his wife, to whom the complainant extended help and due to this the petitioner was annoyed with the complainant.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 16.11.2018. FIR was belatedly lodged after two days of the occurrence

with a manipulated version, contends the counsel. According to him, there is no specific attribution of injury to the petitioner. No offence under Section

307 IPC is made out. From a bare perusal of FIR, no offence under SC & ST Act, ibid, is attracted. He further submits that, per petitioner,

complainant is allegedly having illicit relations with wife of the petitioner. According to him, out of 14 prosecution witnesses, 10 have been examined

and further trial is held up due to pandemic and is not likely to conclude soon.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail plea. He, however, admits that trial is held up due to Covid-19 pandemic and trial is not in

progress.

5.

The petitioner is in custody since 16.11.2018. The trial is not likely to commence and/or conclude anytime soon on account of the fact that the

Courts are working with restrictions due to Covid-19 pandemic. Only urgent matters are being entertained. In this scenario, there is no likelihood of the

trial concluding in near future.

6.

In the circumstances, the petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction

of Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Hisar, as the case may be.