High CourtsSingle Bench

Mohammad Aslam vs State Of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 18 February 2021 · Citation: (2021) 02 P&H CK 0216

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 188, 341, 379B · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25, 54, 59
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 6812 Of 2021 (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 · 366 words

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J

1.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered against him vide FIR No.178 dated 30.05.2020

at Police Station Punhana, District Nuh, under Sections 379-B, 341, 188 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act.

2.

The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Salim Aziz Sayyad, wherein he alleged that on the night intervening 25/26.05.2020, when he

alongwith his friend Jamshed were returning back to their village on his bullet motor-cycle bearing registration No.GJ-05-SB-6806, they were waylaid

by 5/6 persons, who had come in a Swift car. It is alleged that one of the said persons pointed a country-made pistol on the neck of the complainant

and snatched his motor-cycle forcibly and also took his Aadhar card, PAN card, cash amount of Rs.1350/-, two mobile phones, Registration

Certificate, License, ATM card, credit card etc.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that he is nowhere named in the FIR.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has informed that the petitioner came to be nominated as an accused on the basis of supplementary

statement made by the complainant on 05.06.2020 and thereafter was arrested on 08.06.2020 and recovery of ATM card, mobile phone, purse

containing Rs.200/- and a bag was effected from him. Learned State counsel has, however, informed that as on date the petitioner has been behind

bars since the last about 8 months and that he is not involved in any other case.

5.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

6.

Keeping in view the fact that challan already stands presented and while noticing that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last more than 8

months and is not stated to be involved in any other case, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose as the conclusion of trial

will take some time. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety

bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.