CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Ravi Kumar vs State Of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 19 June 2020 · Citation: (2020) 06 P&H CK 0026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 148, 149, 307, 323, 325, 326, 452, 506 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 14076-2020
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

8 paragraphs · 356 words

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J

1.

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking grant of regular bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No.258 dated 7.11.2019 under Sections 148, 149, 307, 323, 325, 326, 452, 506 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station Sector 14 Panchkula, District Panchkula.

2.

The FIR was registered at the instance of Amit Sharma, wherein it has been alleged that on 7. 11.2019 when he was present in his office, then Amit, Love (petitioner) and Ram entered into his office along with 3-4 unknown persons and started beating complainant's brother. It is alleged that the complainant as well as his brother were caused injuries on face and head and that there is deep injury on the back side of the complainant's head, and on his arm and his face. His brother is also 1 of 2 (2) CRM-M-14076-2020 stated to have been caused several injuries on his forehead and face. It is specifically stated that Amit caused an injury to the complainant on his head from the butt of pistol/revolver.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the injury which has been opined to be dangerous to life is attributed to co-accused Amit and that the petitioner in any case has been behind bars since the last about 7 months and 'Challan' already stands presented and that in these circumstances he is not required to be detained any further.

4.

The aforesaid position as regards the attribution of injuries and custody of the petitioner is not disputed by the learned State counsel.

5.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, especially that the main injury is attributed to the co-accused and that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last more than

7 months, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose as conclusion of trial is likely to take some time.

6.

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.