High CourtsSingle Bench

Jai Karan @ Gollu vs State Of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 22 February 2021 · Citation: (2021) 02 P&H CK 0259

HON’BLE JUDGES
Lalit Batra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439, 482 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 506
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 4400, 2385, 1720 Of 2021
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

29 paragraphs · 475 words

Lalit Batra, J

Case has been taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing.

CRM-4400-2021

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for preponing the date of hearing of the main petition, which is already fixed for 16.03.2021.

Notice of the application.

At the asking of Court, learned State counsel accepts notice of the application and stated that he has no objection if application is allowed.

In view of the grounds mentioned in the application and no objection by learned State counsel, hearing of the main petition is preponed and is taken on

Board today itself.

CRM is allowed.

CRM-M-1720-2021 (O&M)

Present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C has been moved by petitioner-JAI KARAN @ GOLLU for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.688 dated

07.11.2020 under Sections 148, 323, 324, 326 and 506 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Assandh, District Karnal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that allegations levelled in the FIR are totally concocted, false and frivolous and there is no iota

of truth therein. He further submits that allegedly grievous injury i.e. fracture of fifth metatarsal bone of right foot sustained by injured-complainant

(Prince) has been attributed to the petitioner. He further urges that alleged injury is not on the vital organ of the body. He further submits that

petitioner is in custody since 21.11.2020 and he is no more required by the Police for any investigation purpose. He further submits that challan has

already been presented in Court and since trial of the case would take sufficient time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the

petitioner in custody further and he may be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned State counsel while opposing instant petition has vehemently argued that keeping in view seriousness of offence, petitioner

does not deserve the concession of bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

At this stage, without commenting anything on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the outcome of the trial but taking into consideration the fact

that petitioner is in custody since 21.11.2020; that petitioner is no more required by the Investigating Agency for investigation purpose; that challan has

already been presented in Court and since trial of the case would take sufficient time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the

petitioner in custody further, thus, he deserves the concession of bail.

In view of above, instant petition for grant of regular bail moved by petitioner-JAI KARAN @ GOLLU is allowed and he is ordered to be released on

bail on his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Karnal, as the case may be.

CRM-2385-2021

Since the main petition itself has been taken up on Board and allowed today, the instant application stands disposed of.