Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANDEEP ALIAS SANJAY versus STATE OF HARYANA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sandeep alias Sanjay v. State of Haryana - CRM-58436-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 417 (30 January 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. No.58436-M of 2005

Date of decision: February 17, 2006.

Sandeep alias Sanjay

...Petitioner

Through

Mr. R.S. Rai, Advocate

v.

State of Haryana

...Respondent

Through

Mr.Yashwinder Singh,

Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

Judgment

The prayer in this petition is to release the petitioner on regular bail in FIR No.74, dated 9.3.2005, under section 392, 394 IPC, registered at Police Station Central Faridabad.

As per the allegations, the complainant, after withdrawing the amount of Rs.2,39,000/- from the Gramin Bank, left his village so as to pay the same towards registration charges of a piece of land, and when he reached the old Faridabad chowk in a three-wheeler, a person came in Maruti van and by telling the complainant that he was going towards village Pirthala, suddenly snatched the bag from the right hand of the complainant and ran away in the van. The complainant, however, attempted to catch hold of the said person and raised voice, however, the person sitting on the rear seat of the van gave a fist blow. In this manner, the said person and the driver of the van managed to run away in the van. The complainant allegedly suffered injuries in the scuffle. It is alleged that the petitioner was one of the occupants of the Maruti van.

In support of the prayer made in this petition, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that:- (i) the petitioner is in custody since 26.3.2005; (ii) after completion of investigation and framing of charges, the trial has begun and some of the prosecution witnesses have even been examined; (iii) the star prosecution witness, namely, the complainant has not supported the prosecution case qua the petitioner; (iv) the petitioner's co-accused, namely, Surender and Vijay, have already been released on bail by this Court.

Learned State Counsel, though has opposed the prayer in this petition, however, the fact that:- (i) the complainant has not supported the prosecution case so far as the petitioner is concerned; and (ii) the petitioner's co-accused have already been released on bail, are not disputed by him. It is, however, contended by him that the petitioner is a hardened criminal who is involved in four more such like cases.

After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties and without expressing any views on the merits of the case lest it should prejudice wither of them, but having regard to the nature of evidence produced by the prosecution against the petitioner, especially the statement of the complainant himself, and the fact that the petitioner's co-accused have already been released on bail, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad.

February 17, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.