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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Date of Decision: July 12, 2021
Vicky @ Vikas Dahiya …..Petitioner
State of Haryana ……Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr.Amit Choudhary,Advocate
for the applicant-petitioner.
Mr.B.S.Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
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
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 :::
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 )
1. Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable ? Yes/No
2 of 2
13-07-2021 02:25:15 :::