Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 230 (PNJ)

Satish v. State Of Haryana

2022-02-03

HARNARESH SINGH GILL

body2022
JUDGMENT Harnaresh Singh Gill , J. (Oral) - Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing. 2. Through this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case bearing FIR No.140 dated 08.06.2021, registered at Police Station Chhainsa, Faridabad, under Sections 148, 149, 341, 324, 307, 379-B and 506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (final report submitted under Sections 324, 325, 341, 307, 506 and 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959). 3. As per the prosecution version, the petitioner and other co- accused in furtherance of their common intention had given knife blows to Parveen after having caught hold of him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is a case of version and cross-version and it is yet to be ascertained by the trial Court on the basis of evidence as to which was the aggressor party and that a blatant attempt has been made to rope in all the family members of the petitioners in the present case. Learned counsel further contends that the challan stands presented; that the petitioner has been in custody since 12.07.2021, and that the conclusion of the trial would take time to conclude. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, while vehemently opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that it was a third attack upon the complainant party by the petitioner and other co- accused; that cross-case bearing FIR No.192 dated 21.07.2021, Police Station Chhanisa, was got registered by the uncle of the petitioner, against the complainant party after a period of more than one month of the registration of the present FIR. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The challan stands presented. As stated above, it is a case of version and crosss-version and it is yet to be ascertained as to which was the aggressor party. The prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. 7. The petitioner has been in custody since 12.07.2021. Trial of the case would take time to conclude. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. 8. The prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. 7. The petitioner has been in custody since 12.07.2021. Trial of the case would take time to conclude. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. 8. In view of the above, without commenting anything on the merits, lest it should prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.