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
22 paragraphs · 385 wordsAnoop Chitkara, J
Challenging the order dated 24.08.2020 passed by this Court in CrMPM No. 375 of 2020, the State has come up before this Court under section
439(2) CrPC seeking its cancellation.
Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on hearing noise and commotion of cutting of Khair trees, the complainant went towards his
fields carrying his licensed double barrel gun. On putting the said persons to challenge, three-four persons came forwards him who had sawing
instruments and other sharp edged objects with them. They inflicted injury on the arm of the complainant as well as his brother. They also snatched his
licensed double barrel gun. They forcible loaded the axed wood in a pick-up truck. Subsequent to that, the injured reached the hospital and the instant
FIR was lodged.
Learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioner contends that the accused violated the terms and conditions of the bail order. He further
contends that in compliance of interim bail order, the petitioner joined the investigation on 01.03.2020, 02.03.2020, 04.03.2020 and 08.03.2020 and
thereafter despite issuance of many notices, he did not join the investigation, which is violation of bail.
On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the accused contends that during the pendency of this petition, the accused did join investigation.
REASONING:
Vide order dated 14.06.2021, this Court had directed to the accused to join investigation. On 22.06.2021, when this matter was heard, then Mr.
N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, stated on instructions that the petitioner had joined investigation right from 14.06.2021 till date as and when
called to do so. This fact is not disputed by the State.
Any detailed discussions about the evidence may prejudice the case of the prosecution or the accused. Suffice it to say that the petitioner fails to
make out grounds for the cancellation of the bail.
Given the above reasoning and without commenting on the case's merits and the circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner fails to make out
a case to cancel the bail already granted to the accused.
Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petition is dismissed.