Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1601 (PNJ)

Parveen alias Kachi v. State of Haryana

2013-12-04

REKHA MITTAL

body2013
JUDGMENT Mrs. Rekha Mittal, J. (Oral):- CRM-49504-2013 Allowed as prayed for. CRM-49505-2013 Allowed as prayed for. Annexures P5 to P7 are taken on record subject to just exceptions. CRM-M-34491-2013 1. The petitioner prays for grant of regular bail in FIR No.61 dated 20.05.2013 for offence under Sections 307, 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Mohana, Sonipat. 2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that a false case has been planted against the petitioner and his co-accused at the behest of police officials. No injury has been sustained in the occurrence, which falsifies the allegations that the petitioner and his co-accused fired at the police party with an intention to kill them. It is argued that Surender Singh son of Chandgi Ram made a complaint to the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi with regard to lodging of false FIR No.61 dated 21.05.2013 against the accused and in those proceedings, Inspector General of Police, Law and Order for Director General of Police, Haryana submitted a report on the basis of enquiry conducted by State Crime Branch, Superintendent of Police, Sonepat for initiating disciplinary action against the delinquent police official for lodging false FIR No.61 dated 21.05.2013. The last submission made by counsel is that the petitioner is ready to face trial without any default. 3. Mr.Anupam Sharma, AAG, Haryana has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. He has conceded to the position that no injury has been sustained by any of the police officials in the present occurrence. 4. The trial is pending before the Court and may take some time to be concluded. There are no allegations against the petitioner that he does not have a permanent place of stay and likely to flee from justice in case enlarged on bail. 5. 4. The trial is pending before the Court and may take some time to be concluded. There are no allegations against the petitioner that he does not have a permanent place of stay and likely to flee from justice in case enlarged on bail. 5. Without commenting upon the merits of the controversy, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions:- (i) he shall 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (ii) he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.