Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHOOP SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhoop Singh v. State of Haryana - CRM-8351-M-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 541 (3 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl.M.No.8351 M of 2006

Date of decision:21.2.2006

Bhoop Singh v. State of Haryana

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
Present: Mr. R.N.Singal, Advocate.

Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl.A.G.Haryana.

ORDER:

Heard.

Offences alleged against the petitioner are under sections 148/149/323/324/285/302/506 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act.

According to the case of the prosecution, 22 persons have been named for the death of Kali Ram and injuries to Devi Lal, brother of the deceased.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only attributed a simple injury on the hand and there are cross versions. The FIR was lodged by Lekh Ram on the side of the petitioner earlier and seven persons were injured on his side. It is submitted that 11 persons have already been arrested from the side of the petitioner out of 22 persons named and possibility of exaggeration is not ruled out. It is submitted that individual role attributed to the petitioner is of causing simply injury on a non-vital part of the body; arrest of the petitioner is not called for; he will join investigation and face proceedings in accordance with law.

Having regard to the circumstances of the case and without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of investigation or three months whichever is later during which the petitioner will be free to apply for regular bail to the concerned court in accordance with law.

In the event of arrest, the petitioner will be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer within two weeks from today on the conditions that the petitioner will not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; he will not interfere with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly; he will not leave the country without the previous permission of the court; he will associate with the investigation as and when called by the police and that he will surrender the passport, if any.

The petition is disposed of.

February 21, 2006 (Adarsh Kumar Goel)

'gs' 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.