Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 25 August, 2022
POOJA SHARMA
2022.08.25 06:18
CRM-M-36738 of 2022 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-36738 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of decision : 25.08.2022
Ajay Kumar eee Petitioner
versus
StateofHaryana 2a Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Kee
Present :-Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Kee
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (QRAL)
This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.117 dated
10.05.2020 registered under Sections 147, 148, 188, 323, 302 & 506 IPC
at Police Station Agroha, District Hisar.
As per the allegations levelled in the FIR incident relates to
09.05.2020. It has been stated that the present petitioner and his brother-
in-law namely Pardeep came to the complainant. When complainant
alongwith other persons including the accused were having drinks, the
present petitioner Ajay Kumar slapped Ashok Kumar, due to which there
was altercation between them. Thereafter, at about 3.30 a.m. Ajay
Kumar along with other persons came in a Swift Car of Ajmer. Serious
injuries were caused to Amit and Vinod. Amit succumbed to his injuries
in the hospital.
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
POOJA SHARMA
2022.08.25 06:18
CRM-M-36738 of 2022 (O&M) 2
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner inter-alia contends
that the petitioner is in custody since 20.05.2020. He relies upon the
orders Annexures P-9 to P-11 to assert that the co-accused have already
been granted bail. Dalbir Singh, who has been assigned similar role as
has been assigned to the present petitioner also stands admitted to the
regular bail by (Annexure P-11) vide order passed in CRM-M-39108 of
2021 decided on 10.05.2022. He further submits that during trial almost
all the witnesses have resiled from their statements and have not
supported the version of the prosecution.
Learned State counsel is not in a position to dispute the said
fact, the same being matter of record. However, he emphatically opposes
the bail application and submits that infact the petitioner will be the main
accused.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The version of the prosecution remains un-corroborated
despite the testimony of the eye-witness. It has been recorded in the
order passed in CRM-M-39108 of 2021 that infact it was not a case of
assault but the parties were embroiled in the brawl. In view of the parity
claimed by the petitioner, no useful purpose shall be served by
prolonging the incarceration of the petitioner.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, the petitioner is
ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-36738 of 2022 (O&M) 3
Needless to say anything recorded herein shall be construed as
an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(PANKAJ JAIN )
JUDGE
25.08.2022
Pooja sharma-I
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable : No
POOJA SHARMA
2022.08.25 06:18
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
