Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15316 = 2020 L.A.R. (e-Suppl.) 936
Decided on: 28.08.2020
Present:
Mr. B. S. Saroha, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B -- Snatching with hurt – Regular bail -- Submission that except the disclosure statement of co-accused, there is no other evidence as after the arrest of the petitioner, nothing was recovered from him to connect him with the crime -- Petitioner is in judicial custody for the last about 10 months and challan stands presented, charges are yet to be framed -- Petitioner has no history of any criminal background and this is the first case registered against him and no test identification of the petitioner was conducted -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case and the prosecution evidence is yet to start -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.
(Para 5-10)
****
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (ORAL) --
CRM-20621-2020
1. Prayer in this application is for preponing the date of the main case i.e. fixed for 24.11.2020.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Let the main case be preponed and taken up today itself.
CRM-M-10920-2020
3. This is petition has been filed under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 1087 dated 22.11.2019, under Section 379-B IPC at Police Station City Panipat, District Panipat.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegations in the FIR, registered at the instance of complainant Joga Singh, on 22.11.2019, he was having an amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- in his pocket and when he was going to purchase some articles, a young man caught hold of him from his neck and then two more young men reached there. They started beating the complainant and snatched the said amount. On making noise, two persons succeeded in fleeing from the spot, however, one person was apprehended by one Vinod and on inquiry, he disclosed his name as Sandeep son of Jagdish.
5. Learned counsel further submits that during investigation, aforesaid Sandeep suffered a disclosure statement that his associates were Satish and Ravi (petitioner) and later on, both of them were arrested on 26.11.2019.
6. Learned counsel further submits that against the petitioner except the disclosure statement of aforesaid co-accused, there is no other evidence as after the arrest of the petitioner, nothing was recovered from him to connect him with the crime.
7. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is in judicial custody for the last about 10 months and challan stands presented, however, charges are yet to be framed and it will take a long time in conclusion of trial.
8. It is further submitted that petitioner has no history of any criminal background and this is the first case registered against him and no test identification of the petitioner was conducted.
9. Learned State counsel, on telephonic instructions from ASI Jagmohan Singh, has not disputed the factual position and submitted that petitioner is not involved in any other case and the prosecution evidence is yet to start.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, without commenting anything on merits of the case, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
Petition allowed.
********