High CourtsSINGLE BENCH

Ravinder Singh and another vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 7 September 2017 · Citation: (2017) 09 P&H CK 0044

HON’BLE JUDGES
Inderjit Singh
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=3863>Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973</a>, <a href=3863-438>Section 438</a> - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest · <a href=1767>Indian Penal Code, 1860</a>, <a href=1767-34>Section 34</a>, <a href=1767-307>Section 3
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
21009 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

29 paragraphs · 313 words

CRM No.27533 of 2017

1.

The application is allowed. Complainant-Krishan Kumar is

hereby impleaded as respondent No.2 in this case. Amended memo of

parties is taken on record.

CRM No.M-21009 of 2017 (O&M)

2.

Petitioners-Ravinder Singh and Nanita Devi have filed this

petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for

brevity, '' Cr.P.C .'') for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.174 dated

03.04.2017, registered at Police Station Bhiwani Sadar, District Bhiwani, under Sections 307, 323, 325 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned

counsel for respondent No.2 appeared and contested the petition.

3.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned

State counsel and have gone through the record.

4.

From the record, I find that occurrence is stated to be of

01.05.2016 but the FIR has been got registered after about one year i.e.

03.04.2017. Secondly, it is a cross-version of a murder case. No injury has

been attributed to petitioner No.2-Nanita Devi. As it is a case of version and

cross-version, the trial Court is still to determine on the basis of evidence as

to who is the aggressor party as the FIR has been registered after one year of

the occurrence.

5.

In pursuance of the interim order dated 02.06.2017, passed by

this Court, the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are

not required for custodial interrogation. Therefore, no useful purpose will

be served by sending the petitioners to custody.

6.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present

case; without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find merit in this petition

and the same is allowed. The order dated 02.06.2017, granting interim bail

to the petitioners, is made absolute.