High CourtsSingle Bench

Parveen Kumar vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 3 October 2018 · Citation: (2018) 10 P&H CK 0022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 307, 452
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. No.42859 Of 2018
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

19 paragraphs · 391 words

Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') in FIR

No.183 dated 30.06.2018, for offence punishable under Sections 307, 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and 25 of the

Arms Act, registered at Police Station Khol, District Rewari.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 30.06.2018, two FIRs were registered against the petitioner in the same Police Station.

The allegations in FIR No.184 are that at the instance of the co-accused Tarun, who is also a co-accused in the present FIR, the petitioner had fired a

shot on one Rahul, however, he was not injured. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been granted regular bail by the Additional Sessions

Judge in FIR No.184 on 05.09.2018.

Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as per the allegations in the present FIR i.e. FIR No.183, again it is stated that the petitioner and

the aforesaid co-accused Tarun had fired a shot on one Deepak @ Pardesi and no one was injured in the said incident. It is further argued that the

weapon was recovered from the co-accused â€" Tarun.

Counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Raj Kumar, has submitted that during the investigation, it is found that co-accused â€" Tarun was

having enmity with the aforesaid two persons namely Rahul and Deepak @ Pardesi.

As per the Custody Certificate filed in the Court today, it is not disputed that the petitioner is on bail in the aforesaid FIR.

Without commenting anything on merits of the case, considering the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 07.07.2018' the investigation is

complete; challan has been presented before the trial Court; the petitioner has already been released on regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge

in FIR No.184 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject

to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail of the petitioner, in case he is found involved in any other case or misusing

the concession of bail, in any manner.