The Punjab and Haryana HC was dealing with the petition filed under Section 439 CrPC for grant of bail.
Brief Facts:
The complainant informed the police that he was going to drop car of his company to Yamuna Nagar. On the way he allowed three young boys as passengers in his car on fare. They were calling each other as Amit, Vipul and Monu. At around 4.30 pm, when they were on NH1 60 milestone near Dhaba Ganaur, they all alighted to go to washroom. After coming back, one boy pointed a revolver on his temple and made him alight from the driver seat. Subsequently, one of them asked Monu to drive the car and made him sit on back side. Later on, they took the car towards Panipat and snatched his mobile phone and wallet. Subsequently, they made him alight at Rohtak.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.
Respondent’s Contention:
The learned State counsel submitted that although the recovery has been affected, however, the statement of the complainant is yet to be recorded. Learned State counsel opposed the bail on the ground that there are six other cases pending against the petitioner.
HC’s observations:
HC looked into various case laws. HC relied upon the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, where SC held that “the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail.” HC also looked into the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan, where SC held that “the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situation.”
HC stated that it is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime.
HC relied upon the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, where SC held that “the delicate light of the law favors release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course.” HC also relied upon the case of Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, where SC held “that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.”
HC Held:
HC after evaluating case laws and submissions held that “The Co-accused has been already granted bail. Similarly, the other accused was Also given bail. Thus, considering the young age of the petitioner who is of 22 years and at that time he was around 19 years of age, coupled with the period of incarceration already undergone, he makes out a case for bail.”
HC granted bail to the petitioner.
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara
Case Title: Monu v. State of Haryana
Case Details: CRM-M-47463-2021
Read Judgment;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments