High CourtsSINGLE BENCH

Karan Singh vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 15 December 2017 · Citation: (2017) 12 P&H CK 0014

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jaishree Thakur
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=3863>Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973</a>, <a href=3863-438>Section 438</a>, <a href=3863-319>Section 319</a> - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest - Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offenc
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
M-35226 of 2017 (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

36 paragraphs · 395 words
1.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.307 dated

11.06.2016, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376-D, 120-B of the Indian Penal

Code and Section 6 of POCSO Act (offences under Sections 376-D, 120-B

of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act added later on) registered at Police

Station Hodal, District Palwal.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during

investigation conducted by the DSP, Hodal, the petitioner herein was found to be innocent and kept in column No.2. It is subsequently that an

application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed and the petitioner herein

has been summoned along with two others to face the trial as accused. It is

also contended that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and he is

ready to join the proceedings before the trial court.

3.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent-State as well as counsel for the complainant, oppose the grant of

anticipatory bail, while submitting that offences alleged against the

petitioner are serious in nature.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

5.

In the instant case trial has already been commenced and it is

after recording the statements of the complainant and prosecutrix as PW9

and PW11 respectively that an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was

filed, which came to be allowed on 29.08.2017. Resultantly, the petitioner

herein along with two other persons have been summoned to stand for the

trial along with accused Mahender.

6.

In view of the facts that the petitioner herein is not required for

the custodial interrogation and that he is ready to join the proceedings

before the trial court, no useful purpose would be served by sending the

petitioner behind bars. At this stage, without commenting on the merits of

the case, the instant petition is being allowed and the petitioner herein is

directed to surrender/appear before the trial court within a period of 10 days

from today and on his doing so, he be released on bail by the trial court to

its satisfaction. Needless to say in case, the petitioner herein fails to

comply with the direction being issued by this court, the instant petition

shall be deemed to be dismissed.

7.

The petition in hand stands allowed, with the aforesaid

directions.