CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Surender vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 25 November 2010 · Citation: (2010) 11 P&H CK 0528

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ram Chand Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 148, 149, 307, 323, 325
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CRM No. M 10660 of 2010
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

9 paragraphs · 344 words

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present petition for bail has been received from Petitioner-accused Surender through jail.

2.

A detailed reply has already been filed on behalf of the Respondent-State.

3.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.

4.

The brief allegations against the Petitioner-accused are that he alongwith co-accused committed robbery by snatching Eicher Canter bearing registration No. HR 55G-8222, two mobile phones and a purse containing Rs. 2000/- and driving licence of the complainant.

5.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the State that two mobile phones beloning to the complainant have been got recovered from the Petitioner-accused. It is further contended that the Canter and the purse were recovered from the co-accused. He further submits that even the complainant has not been examined so far and the allegations against the Petitioner are serious in nature. He further contends that he is also involved in another FIR No. 193 dated 17.7.2008 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 307, 325, 506 IPC at Police Station City Gohana.

6.

On the other hand, it has been contended by learned Amicus Curiae for the Petitioner that he has been continuing in custody for the last about 22 months and that he is on bail in the other FIR registered against him.

7.

Allegations against the Petitioner-accused are serious in nature. On the similar allegations, the bail application of the co-accused Sunil Dutt was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.2.2010 passed in CRM No. M 2114 of 2010. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing anything on the merits of the case, there is no ground to grant bail to the Petitioner at this stage.

8.

The present petition is dismissed at this stage.

9.

However, in view of the fact that the Petitioner has been continuing in custody for the last 22 months, hence, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and efforts be made to conclude the same within three months from the next date of hearing.