SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vicky @ Vikas Dahiya vs State Of Haryana on 12 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

CRM-17601-2021 in/and
CRM-M-41582-2020 -1-


CRM-17601-2021 in/and
Date of Decision: July 12, 2021

Vicky @ Vikas Dahiya …..Petitioner
State of Haryana ……Respondents


Present: Mr.Amit Choudhary,Advocate
for the applicant-petitioner.

Mr.B.S.Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.


Matter has been taken up through video conferencing via

Webex facility in the light of the Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per



For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed and CRM-M-41582-2020 is taken up on Board today itself.


Instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

praying for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.433, dated

13.12.2019, under Sections 304-B,498A, 34 IPC, registered at Police

Station Old Faridabad, District Faridabad.

Petitioner before this Court is the husband of deceased-Mannu.

It has been contended that the offence under which the petitioner has been

1 of 2
13-07-2021 02:25:15 :::
CRM-17601-2021 in/and
CRM-M-41582-2020 -2-

implicated is only because he is husband of the deceased otherwise the

allegations are false. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner is

behind bars since 16.12.2019 and examination of the prosecution witnesses

has already commenced. It is further contended that FIR in question was

lodged by father of the deceased, namely, Netrapal, who has been examined

by the trial Court and he did not support the case of prosecution and thus,

was declared hostile. He further argues that this situation would in itself

show that the petitioner is falsely implicated as crucial witness has already

turned hostile. In the circumstances he prays that petitioner may be granted


Mr.B.S.Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, submits that

the fact regarding arrest of the petitioner is correct and complainant of the

FIR, as contended by counsel for the petitioner, has already been examined

and he did not support the case of prosecution. It is further submitted that

there are in all 27 prosecution witnesses, out of which 4 have been

examined. He opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

In totality of the facts and circumstances, I find that counsel for

the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail to the petitioner. The trial

would take some time for its conclusion and no purpose would be served by

keeping the petitioner behind the bars for further period.

Application is allowed.

Bail to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate


July 12, 2021 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
meenuss JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable ? Yes/No

2 of 2
13-07-2021 02:25:15 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation