High CourtsSingle Bench

Manoj @ Mauji vs State Of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 16 February 2021 · Citation: (2021) 02 P&H CK 0152

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vivek Puri, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 212, 307, 506 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 2645 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

23 paragraphs · 465 words

Vivek Puri, J

The matter has been taken up through video-conferencing due to COVID-19 pandemic.

Status report by way of affidavit of Ram Kumar, H.P.S. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ambala Cantt., District Ambala has been placed on record.

Through present petition, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 162 dated 22.04.2019 under Sections 307, 506, 34, 212 of Indian

Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Ambala City, District Ambala (Haryana).

Briefly, the aforesaid FIR has been registered on the basis of statement of Bharat Bhushan @ Rocky alleging that on 22.04.2019, his friend Mohinder

Singh @ Mogli had gone to a DHABA on the receipt of a telephonic call from the petitioner. Three more friends of the petitioner were accompanying

him. The petitioner exhorted his co-accused and one of them fired upon the back of Mohinder Singh @ Mogli by means of a country made pistol.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 07.05.2019, three co-accused, namely, Ankit, Naveen

and Prempal have been released on bail, the fire arm injury has not been attributed to the petitioner, the fire arm injury has been attributed to Joga

Singh (co-accused), who is in custody, the investigation of the case is complete and challan has already been presented in the Court. It has been

further stated that the injured has been discharged from hospital and is hale and hearty. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the

petitioner that as per his information, the injured is presently confined in jail in a criminal case.

On the contrary, it has been argued by learned State counsel that the occurrence took place at the instance of the petitioner and the country made

pistol has also been recovered from him.

It is significant to note that the fire arm injury has not been attributed to the petitioner. It has been conceded that no BALLISTIC opinion has been

sought, though, as per the opinion of the Armourer, the mechanical test of the country made pistol recovered from the petitioner was conducted and

the same was found to be in working condition. Three of the co-accused have been released on bail. The investigation of the case is complete, challan

has already been presented in the Court, conclusion of trial is likely to take some time and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the

petitioner in further custody.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, sufficient grounds are made out to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition

is allowed and petitioner is directed to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial

Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.